Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 12 July.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 12 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Schemes (CAP Funds)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek the use of European Economic Community common agricultural policy funds for integrated schemes with environmental as well as agricultural benefits in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will adopt the policy that European Economic Community funds can also be used by his Department for integrated and balanced development on farms and not just for purely agricultural ends.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Capital grants are already payable in the United Kingdom on farm investment which would have some environmental rather than purely agricultural benefit. To the extent that this is possible under present European Community legislation, the cost of such measures is partly reimbursed by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund.
It is the Government's intention to seek a strengthening of the environmental safeguards to be included in new agricultural structures regulations presently under discussion in the European Community.

Mr. Yeo: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it mean that the British Government are now willing to follow the Dutch example and take full advantage of article 3.5 of the EC less-favoured areas directive and apply for further assistance for integrated schemes, which will benefit the environment and promote conservation, as well as promote agricultural prosperity generally?

Mrs. Fenner: As I hope I made clear to my hon. Friend, in so far as it is possible we already take advantage of reimbursement from that fund, and we intend to help to strengthen the safeguards in the new structures regulations.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that her reply is encouraging? Does she agree that it is nonsense to use funds available from the Common Market for agriculture just to add to embarassing surpluses? Does it not make sense to use those funds to achieve a proper balance between agriculture and the conservation of wildlife so that we can maintain a good balance of wildlife and agriculture in our countryside?

Mrs. Fenner: Yes, and I understand my hon. Friend's great concern. It is especially welcome that he, a fanner, expresses in the House the concern of farmers for the environment. We have pressed for specific reference to the third action programme on the environment; more importantly, we have pressed for a new provision requiring member states to safeguard the environment when they implement farm structure policies. I trust that that will achieve what my hon. Friend is seeking.

Mr. Canavan: Is it not typical of the double standards of the Government that, as a result of the common agricultural policy, the average British farmer receives a subsidy of about £2,000 a year, yet the Government refuse to give enough subsidy to the coal industry to stop the closure of pits with workable coal reserves?

Mrs. Fenner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, may I appeal to the House to keep to the subjects on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Fenner: I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but my only comment to the hon. Gentleman is that he should direct questions of that sort to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, it is my knowledge that the industry receives very good subsidies indeed.

Mr. Ron Davies: Have riot events over the last couple of years demonstrated that there is an institutionalised conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment? Does the Minister accept that we cannot continue using public funds to subsidise the destruction of the environment merely to create food surpluses for which we must then use public funds to dispose of them? Are any discussions taking place between the Ministry and the Department of the Environment to resolve this conflict?

Mrs. Fenner: Many years of discussions have taken place between my Department and the Department of the Environment, specifically on the preparation of what is now the Wildlife and Countryside Act—an extremely successful measure. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is a conflict between my Ministry and the Department of the Environment.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the president of the National Farmers Union about easing the burden on dairy farmers arising out of the introduction of milk quotas.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I have met the president of the NFU on several occasions during recent weeks. At our most recent formal meeting on 20 June we discussed a number of matters relating to milk quotas and the outgoers scheme.

Mr. Haselhurst: Did my right hon. Friend's discussions with my distinguished constituent cover the case of hardship where the farmer is complaining that the inputs he made prior to the introduction of the quota scheme mean that he will suffer severe financial loss, as he will now not expect to be recompensed, with the possibility of endangering his whole livelihood and the viability of his operation?

Mr. Jopling: It is my belief that the huge majority of farmers will be able to adapt their businesses. The milk industry has already shown remarkable flexibility and adaptibility. While there will be serious problems for milk producers, I believe that their ingenuity will get them through most of the difficulties.

Mr. John Morris: Is it correct that the Minister has decided not to go to the Royal Welsh Show? Would it not be better if he were to go so that he could meet representatives of farmers in Wales, who are deeply concerned about the tragic situation facing the dairy industry?

Mr. Jopling: I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, above anyone else, would know that I am not responsible for agriculture in Wales. That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that recently I paid an enjoyable visit to a western part of Wales, where I was extremely well entertained by Welsh farmers and enjoyed bottled beer and pork pies. While I should very much welcome visiting Wales again, I am afraid that it will not be possible to fit in a visit to the Royal Welsh Show. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be there.

Sir Hector Munro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he had a friendly and warm reception at the Royal Show? Is he further aware that the section of the industry facing the greatest difficulty is probably that of the producer retailer, and has he given further thought to the transferability of quota, which is essential to the survival of that section?

Mr. Jopling: I had an extremely pleasant day on Monday at the Royal Show at Stoneleigh. I am very much bothered by the problems of the producer retailer. I have explained to my hon. Friend—and I did so to the House in the debate on Tuesday—the difficulties that we face because of Community rules which make it extremely difficult to make switches between direct sale quotas and wholesale quotas. This matter needs a good deal of attention by the Commission, and I intend to continue to pursue it.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister also take time to meet representatives of the farm workers in the outgoers scheme, because we understand that a 40-year-old stockman will get only £900 redundancy pay if he loses his job, which compares ill with the amount provided for cow owners?

Mr. Jopling: I had an extremely hospitable meeting with the farm workers at their stand at the Royal Show. It was a pleasant occasion. But let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Canavan: Was it just milk that the right hon. Gentleman was drinking?

Mr. Jopling: We had something rather stronger than milk to drink. Comparisons between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme are false. The outgoers scheme is not a redundancy scheme. It is intended to help the industry to adjust to a new situation, by encouraging those who wish to go out of milk production to do so, thus making extra quota available for redistribution. Outgoers do not have to leave farming; only to give up dairying.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the implementation of milk quotas.

Mr. Jopling: Draft regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act were laid before Parliament on 27 June. These regulations set out the detailed arrangements for implementing the quota system.

Mr. Temple-Morris: We were grateful for the opportunity to debate the matter ealier this week. My first question relates to better quota transfer and flexibility. Will my right hon. Friend get to Europe as quickly as he can—I appreciate that his hands are tied—and press for greater opportunities for transfer, perhaps by such means as leasing? There is uncertainty about the future. Now that we are stuck with milk quotas, for better or for worse, may we have a longer term plan for milk?

Mr. Jopling: I am intrigued by the possibility of leasing in connection with quota transfers. Nothing within the Community rules allows us to do that, but we are giving urgent attention to it. There is uncertainty in the industry, for obvious reasons. I hope that shortly we can sort out many of the problems, particularly in relation to quotas, after we have dealt with the special cases. We cannot move further until we have passed the regulations to which I referred in my main answer. I am anxious to consider what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House before we bring back the regulations for a final decision.

Mr. Torney: Will the Minister explain the French quotas? If the French do not implement their quotas—which are far less stringent than ours—as I think they will not, will the Minister undertake not to implement United Kingdom quotas, and so avoid making some of our farmers bankrupt and many farm workers redundant?

Mr. Jopling: Yesterday the hon. Gentleman attended the Select Committee on Agriculture, which I also had the pleasure of attending. He will remember that I read to the Committee the words which I used in Luxembourg at the last Council, which were also used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his winding-up speech on Tuesday night. I told the Select Committee that I had decided to request the Commission to put on the agenda of the next Council in 10 days' time a report by the Commission on the progress which individual states are making to implement the milk quotas, so that we can see whether everyone is attempting to obey the rules.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware of the fear among those hoping to make a case under the special case procedure that they will not know their final quota until this milk year is completed? Does he agree that they are in an impossible position and cannot adjust the output of their herds in relation to quota? May we have an assurance that that will not happen? Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, will he explain what will happen to the farmers and what fines will be imposed upon them if they have to face that incredible situation?

Mr. Jopling: I hope very much that there will be no question of farmers not knowing what their quotas are before the end of this milk year. It is difficult for us to say when farmers will know precisely what their quota is, because we have no idea how many farmers will apply for consideration under the special case arrangements for a share of the 2½ per cent. of milk production which we have reserved.

Mr. Harris: Is my right hon. Friend confident that he can assemble quickly enough the administrative and appeal machinery to deal with what many of us fear may well be a bureaucratic nightmare?

Mr. Jopling: I have always told the House that the implementation of quotas and super levies would be difficult in bureaucratic terms. There has never been any secret about that. However, I am confident that, immediately after Parliament has agreed to the regulations, we shall be able to ensure that applications are considered very rapidly indeed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the remarks of the Minister of State on Tuesday about hardship cases resulting from bad weather conditions? The wording in column 234 of Hansard suggests that no one can apply until a region is designated as having a 10 to 15 per cent. cut in production because of bad weather or "a natural setback". If that is so, it is a serious restriction on the consideration of hardship cases.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having drawn my attention to this matter as I entered the Chamber. Hardship cases based on weather will be dealt with on an individual basis, not a regional basis.

Horticulture (Research and Development)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider his decision to cut back on resources devoted to research and development in the horticultural sector.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): No. The Ministry's expenditure on externally commissioned horticultural research and development in 1983–84 showed a substantial increase over that in 1982–83; the expenditure planned for this year will merely restore the programme in real terms to the 1982–83 level.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an urgent need for greater research into horticulture, particularly the top fruit and vegetable sectors, which could yield substantial dividends? The Minister has already half answered my question, but can he say what criteria will be used for considering how much research and development will be allocated to horticulture in future?

Mr. MacGregor: The increase last year was temporary. It was not intended to be continued. It was always planned that expenditure would be reduced in real terms to the earlier level. Priorities in horticultural research and development change, and a substantial and worthwhile programme of research and development in horticulture remains. Of our externally commissioned research, 20 per cent. is in horticulture. With regard to future priorities, Ministry scientists are discussing with the AFRC institutes possible changes in horticultural research and development to be commissioned next year.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no delay in drawing research funds away from high-input farming towards low-input farming, and that we should ensure that contributions from the farmers and horticulturists themselves increase?

Mr. MacGregor: Farmers and horticulturists—for instance, there is the research done by ADAS and the experimental farms—have always played an important part in contributing to research and in deciding priorities, as I have seen for myself. My hon. Friend refers to a move towards low-input farming. That will be among the matters to be considered. We must consider changing priorities in research expenditure—some of which is very long term—as conditions change. This year, for instance, we have switched more of the expenditure for research and development to the food industry. Such matters are monitored very closely.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a specific provision within the arrangements under the dairy quota provisions, in respect of quotas for dairy farms deliberately run down in the reference period so it could be sold free of livestock, to facilitate the resumption of milk production under new ownership; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jopling: The rules provide for a quota to he issued provided that milk was actually being sold on 2 April 1984. It would not be appropriate to issue a quota to anybody who had given up production by that date.

Mr. Hunter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer to my question, which was tabled before our recent debate. Will he accept the desirability of a speedy reduction in, or removal of, the co-responsibility levy, which is a great burden on the dairy industry? Will my right hon. Friend take on board the NFU's plea for such a reduction?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will recall that the extra 1 per cent. which was put on for this year will be removed at the end of the next milk year—on 1 April 1985. He will be glad to hear that we have consistently argued for the abolition of the co-responsibility levy, which we believe is counter-productive.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister confirm, in relation to the phasing out of cows, that if someone has a dairy herd of 60 he will get £195,000 in compensation? Is it riot disgraceful that such compensation should be paid to a farmer when less than £1,000 is to be given to a 40-year-old stockman who has looked after that herd for the previous 10 years?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman must not try to use figures in a way that does not demonstrate the facts. I have


already explained that a comparison between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme is utterly false. The hon. Gentleman must realise that paying an outgoer with that number of cows will enable a great many small milk producers to be brought back to their 1983 production patterns, which is what we want to do.

Farm Wardens

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of hours of training required to enable a farm warden to carry out his duties in a national emergency.

Mrs. Fenner: No specialised training would be needed beyond oral and written instructions, which could best be given at the time and should be completed in about one day.

Mr. Holt: I am glad to learn that it does not take long. Will my hon. Friend ensure that wardens are appointed and trained? Does she accept that in that training we must ensure that farm wardens are able to protect stock in the event of chemical warfare?

Mrs. Fenner: We consider it unnecessary to appoint wardens in peacetime, as training can be done quickly in a crisis. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that there are people who are experienced in what they will be asked to do and that one day will be enough to give them the necessary extra instruction.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Andrew Stewart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the date of the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting at which a milk quota scheme on the lines of the one subsequently introduced was first discussed.

Mr. Jopling: The Commission published its proposals on milk quotas and a supplementary levy on 28 July 1983 and this was first discussed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 30 August 1983.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that his Ministry was ill-prepared for the implementation of the quotas in April?

Mr. Jopling: No, I do not accept that at all. The Commission was ill-prepared, in that it had not prepared its ground rules properly. We were not told of the Commission's final ground rules until a date in May, which was five, six or seven weeks after the agreement. Nor were we told until a date in June about the final arrangements for the direct sales arrangements, because the Commission did its sums wrong. Perhaps I might tell the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that the £195,000 in compensation which he quoted is precisely five times what it should be.

Mr. Bruce: When the milk quotas were first discussed, were the implications for beef prices resulting from increased slaughtering considered? As beef prices are showing softness, will the Minister assist farmers if that persists?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman might know that it is traditional at this time of year for beef prices to move downwards as beef comes off the grass. I see some hon. Members on the hon. Gentleman's left nodding

agreement. The impact on the beef market has always been recognised as a consequence of running down milk production as cows are put on the market for slaughter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As my right hon. Friend has just told the House that the outgoers scheme is not a compensation scheme but one to buy quota for reallocation, may I ask him on what date he told either the Commission or the Cabinet that he insisted on a compensation scheme — and I mean a compensation scheme — for those driven out of economic milk production which parallels that given to steel workers driven out of their occupation by the EEC quota on steel? When did he do that? If he has not done it, when will he do it?

Mr. Jopling: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not appreciate what I said. I showed that a comparison between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme was false because outgoers do not have to leave farming; they are obliged only to give up dairying.

Mr. Corbett: Did the right hon. Gentleman raise in the Council of Ministers the need for adequate redundancy for stockmen and others who lose their jobs as a result of milk quotas? Does he accept that while a redundant cow can attract £3,250 over five years, a redundant stockman, having been thrown on the scrapheap, will get less than £1,000?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will know that the redundancy arrangements have been in operation for many years, including when the Labour party was last in office. He will also know that agricultural workers who are made redundant will be able to benefit from the existing statutory redundancy scheme.

New Zealand Butter

Sir David Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the access agreement for New Zealand butter over the next five years agreed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 18 and 19 June will have on British dairy producers' milk quotas.

Mr. MacGregor: The agreement in principle on imports of New Zealand butter is quite separate from the new arrangements for milk quotas. The quotas for milk were based on delivery and sales levels in member states and there is no specific provision for them to be adjusted to reflect changes in import levels.

Sir David Price: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I take it that we can reassure our farmers that the new New Zealand arrangements are not being taken by the EEC against the British quota for milk, something which is widely believed among farmers?

Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that, in the negotiations on the milk quotas, that point did not arise, and I do not see why it should have done. As I say, the milk quotas were assessed on a totally different basis.

Mr. Gould: Is one of the more unfortunate consequences of the mess into which the Minister and his predecessors have plunged the dairy industry likely to be that the long-standing support of the British Government, based on self-interest and fair play, for continued access for New Zealand butter may come under attack? May we have an assurance that the Minister will resist such pressures?

Mr. MacGregor: The best answer that I can give to that supplementary question is that previous Ministers have had to negotiate the New Zealand butter situation on a year-by-year basis. This year we have provisional approval for what is a five-year agreement, although only the first three years have specific quantities. The New Zealand Government have greatly welcomed that position, and it is an indication that the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes has not arisen and will not arise in the immediate future.

Mr. Forth: While I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, may I ask him to acknowledge that a continuing supply of competitive and high quality products from New Zealand will always be a salutary basis of comparison against which the efficiency of European agriculture can be measured?

Mr. MacGregor: I believe that the House in general feels that it is right that we should continue to give this support to New Zealand, not least because since 1973 the New Zealand butter quota has been almost halved, and therefore New Zealand has faced, in terms of the United Kingdom, much bigger cuts than have our producers.

Milk Quotas

Sir John Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that only six exceptional events need be taken into account in varying a basic quota for milk production.

Mr. Jopling: Under the Community rules there are only six exceptional events which entitle a producer to have his quota calculated from a different base year. Producers who have invested in facilities for expanding production may also be given additional quota if they meet certain conditions.

Sir John Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask whether he has had any evidence to suggest that these six conditions alone are too inflexible and insufficient in number? If I provide him with evidence that further exceptional conditions should be taken into account, will he take up the issue with the EC?

Mr. Jopling: As I have explained, the six exceptional events are enshrined in the rules. I shall be anxious to hear from my hon. Friend if he has evidence of other special hard cases which he thinks are worthy of note. I have been made aware of a number by hon. Members and I am considering all of those. It seems that some Labour Members appear to believe that the outgoers' payment is £650 per cow per year, whereas it is £650 per cow to be paid over five years.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the Minister formed any estimate of the number of dairy farmers who will go out of business or have their livelihoods severely depleted? How many herdsmen will lose their livelihoods completely? How many of those employed in dairy processing will lose their livelihoods?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to make any estimates. I hope that relatively few farmers, farm workers and dairy workers will be made redundant and forced to leave their current activity. It is impossible to make assessments of the sort that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In making representations on hardship to the Commission in Brussels, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind instances where herds have been split because of the buying up of a partner, or death, leading to a substantial reduction in output for the relevant year?

Mr. Jopling: I shall take account of those factors and bear them closely in mind.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the six exceptional cases that he has listed are by and large those that might be ascribed to acts of God? The acts of man—for example, farmers who have invested under the FHDS scheme—are given second priority. Is it not ironic that the right hon. Gentleman should give greater priority to hardship cases arising from the act of God than to those arising from the act of man—himself?

Mr. Jopling: I do not accept that all these events are acts of God. When I see that the sixth case is theft or loss of cattle, I hope that that is not so. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the other events are natural disasters, the destruction of fodder or buildings, epizootic diseases in animals, compulsory appropriation of land and serious illness of the producer. They are all serious matters and the rules of the Community dictate that they must be dealt with first before dealing with expanders.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question refers to exceptional events that need to be taken into account? Will he therefore give a much more satisfactory answer to the supplementary question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who asked what would happen if dairy farmers could no longer continue in dairying? My right hon. Friend responded by saying that they could go into other forms of farming. What if there is no other sort of fanning into which they can go? Will he change the outgoers scheme to ensure that it is tax-free, instead of giving nonsensical replies of the sort that lie gave to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend, who takes such a close interest in these matters, should recall that the basic purpose of the outgoers scheme is to get 2¼ per cent. of the total milk quota available for reallocation. The scheme is directed to the very people to whom my hon. Friend has referred, because the first 1¼ per cent. of the 2¼ per cent. will go to small fanners with fewer than 40 cows, who are 40 per cent. of all milk producers, to bring them back to their 1983 production patterns.

Mr. Maclean: When can we expect an announcement on the special help that will be available to young farmers who have recently set up in business and are trying to build a viable home? I can see no sign of that in my reading of the 78 pages of draft regulations. Yet Mr. Poul Dalsager refers to that in article 3, page 18, which states:
The Member States may grant additional reference quantities to young farmers setting up after 31 December 1980.

Mr. Jopling: Young farmers who have set up in business and claim that they are on an expansionist course, and are committed to it, will have their cases considered by the tribunals once they are established.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The EC rules on hardship claims use the words "serious natural disaster". The Minister used the phrase "serious natural setback". What is the difference?

Mr. Jopling: I do not think that there is any difference. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the first of the six events is described as a natural disaster.

Sugar Beet

Mr. Leigh: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on sugar beet quotas.

Mr. MacGregor: The current quotas for sugar were agreed in 1981 and run until the end of the 1985–86 season.

Mr. Leigh: With British agriculture desperately needing new outlets, and one or more of the 13 British sugar factories in danger of closing, is it not nonsense for Britain, alone of all the EEC countries, to have a quota in sugar that does not cover consumption? In our case, it covers only 50 per cent. At the very least, will my hon. Friend press the Council of Ministers for restoration of the 200,000 tonne cut in quotas imposed in 1981?

Mr. MacGregor: The 1981 agreement was designed to secure a fair balance between United Kingdom beet growers and the ACP countries, to whom we also owe an obligation. The Commission has made it clear that it does not envisage changing the quotas that have been agreed to run until 1985–86. One problem is that if we were to try to unscramble the quotas now it would not necessarily be only British interests that would be taken into account. There is a danger that the question of other member states' interests would also be reopened.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister assure the House that at the next knot of negotiations he will at least ensure that the farmers of this country retain the current sugar beet quotas?

Mr. MacGregor: We are talking about negotiations for the 1985–86 quotas. It is too early to decide our policy in detail. As for other commodities, we shall obviously wish to restrain Community surpluses, and that must be taken into account. We shall want a fair deal for United Kingdom producers. We must continue to ensure that there is a fair balance on the United Kingdom market between beet and cane sugar.

Mr. Onslow: Can we take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he recognises that it is in the interests of the British consumer, and of the Commonwealth, that he should not impose any further penalties on sugar produced in the Caribbean countries?

Mr. MacGregor: I think I have indicated that, when the time comes, we shall endeavour to ensure a fair balance, such as we attempted to achieve for the United Kingdom beet growers and Commonwealth suppliers in 1981.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that he is not prepared to sell the cane sugar producers' quota to satisfy a temporary pressure on the beet sector?

Mr. MacGregor: We are talking about a period that is still some years ahead, and we must bear that in mind. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that what I have said shows that we shall endeavour to achieve a fair balance.

Potato Marketing Board

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the members of the Potato Marketing Board; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. MacGregor: I am in regular touch with the members of the Potato Marketing Board through its chairman, whom I last met on 9 May. On that occasion our discussions covered a wide range of potato issues.

Mr. Janner: Did the Minister's discussions include the price of potatoes, which is especially important as the price of fish and chips to take away has risen by 15 per cent. because of the Chancellor's intervention, which has raised the price of a basic food for the less well-off people in my constituency and throughout the country?

Mr. MacGregor: I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, because of climatic and other conditions affecting the crop last year, there has been a shortage of supplies in recent months and weeks, which has led to the increased price of potatoes in shops. As the new potatoes come on to the market that shortage will end. The arrangements that we have announced for the Potato Marketing Board are designed to ensure reasonable continuity of supplies, and, therefore, reasonable prices for consumers.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Potato Marketing Board's support mechanism price is way below the price that would be expected in the market place?

Mr. MacGregor: Broadly speaking, that is correct.

New Zealand Butter

Mr. Gould: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the present level of imports of New Zealand butter compares with the level of such receipts at their highest point since 1954.

Mr. MacGregor: Figures given in Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom show that the highest level of imports of New Zealand butter since 1954 was 192,170 tonnes in 1969. A quota of 83,000 tonnes has been agreed for 1984.

Mr. Gould: Do not those figures show that a substantial price has been paid by the New Zealand producer and the British consumer? When will the ugly-sounding principle of regressivity end?

Mr. MacGregor: It is certainly the case that there has been a considerable cut in New Zealand supplies to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the way in which New Zealand has done this and dealt with the implications on the world market in an orderly manner. The new arrangement means that during the next three years the decline in supplies will be much less sharp.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Wallace: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had


meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Wallace: As we have heard within the past half hour that the Secretary of State for the Environment is to make a statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, following the Government's substantial defeat last week in another place, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to admit that the undemocratic provisions of that Bill are unprincipled? Will she, for once, show some humility and admit that her Government have been wrong?

The Prime Minister: The Government have decided to table an amendment to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill on Report in another place, proposing that the present members of the GLC and of the metropolitan county councils should continue in office into 1986, but without elections next year. At the same time, further provisions will be introduced to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.

Mrs. Peacock: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that the recent picketing activities in Yorkshire not only harm Yorkshire but draw attention to the Yorkshire work force, many of whom are hardworking? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those actions make it difficult for those of us who wish to attract new industry to replace the textile industry?

The Prime Minister: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend said. The strikes and picketing are not conducive to attracting new industry and new jobs to this country. As always, strikes destroy jobs.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister not think it is a pity that we had to gouge agreement from the Government at 2.30 pm to make a statement this afternoon? Was the original decision, which was made by the Cabinet this morning and announced to the press, by the Prime Minister's press secretary at 11.45 am, that the Secretary of State should not make a statement made because the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to come here, or because the right hon. Lady was afraid to let him?

The Prime Minister: That is absolute nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman should know that there are strict rules of order as between this House and the other place. That is a matter for Mr. Speaker, not for me.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows that she is misleading the House and the country. She is still dodging the question, just as she is dodging democracy by still running away from the ballot box. Who is afraid? Who is frit now?

The Prime Minister: We on the Government Benches are hardly afraid. I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands. I have already replied to his question, and that is just bad luck on him.

Mr. Steel: Of which is the Prime Minister more proud? Is it the report of the Wessex area Conservatives on her strident and uncaring style of government, or is it her constitutional achievement in turning the House of Lords into the conscience of the nation?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government took cognisance of what the House of Lords said. I shall be

interested to know whether all right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—I know his view — are now fervently for the continuance of their Lordships' House.

Mr. Heddle: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the GLC has voted £6 million to clothe the wolf Livingstone in sheep's clothing? Will she take this opportunity—and do so continually—to explain to the country that the abolition of an insensitive and expensive tier of bureaucracy will increase local democracy and accountability?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will mean that local government will be conducted at one tier nearer to the people. I note that many parties in the House have preferred unitary authorities to authorities where there is a second tier.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robinson: The Prime Minister must be aware that her statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will fall far short of meeting the expectations of the House. It is clear from developments during the past 24 hours that the Secretary of State for the Environment has lost his nerve over this issue and has had to be dragooned into making a statement to the House, which he promised less than a week ago. Why will the Prime Minister not put the wretched man out of his misery and sack him?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows, but, as far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement to the House.

Mr. Thurnham: Striking miners have said in a radio broadcast that they wish to return to work but that they dare not for fear of the closed shop arrangements. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend assure miners that they will not lose their jobs if they go back to work and that the National Coal Board is not one of those maverick employers—like, for example, Bolton council—which encourages their employees to stay out on strike?

The Prime Minister: The National Coal Board gave an undertaking some time ago that it would safeguard the jobs of any miners who lost their union membership. Therefore, there is no need for miners to fear going back to work on that account.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the decision of the British Medical Association in Manchester today by a two thirds majority — and I assume that she regards its members as rational and patriotic people — that the expenditure on armaments should be reduced drastically and that the money saved should be diverted to health purposes? Will she now take some initiative along those lines?

The Prime Minister: This Government have always been prepared to conduct disarmament talks, provided that the end result was that disarmament was on a balanced and verifiable basis. To do other than that would be to put the security of the country, which would include the doctors, at risk.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend comment upon the agreed second section of the Fontainebleau communiqué, which states that the VAT contribution may be increased to 1·6 per cent. on 1 January 1988? Is that preparing the ground for a second increase in own resources?

The Prime Minister: As the communiqué made clear, such an increase could take place only with the unanimous consent of each Head of Government and also with the ratification of each and every national Parliament. Those are the safeguards.

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: Is the Prime Minister aware that her Government's policy towards local government now resembles "Son of the Titanic"? Before she sacks the Secretary of State for the Environment, that poor bumbling wreckage at the end of the Front Bench, will she bear in mind that he was only carrying out her instruction to abolish the Greater London council, which was based on her own personal vindictiveness towards Ken Livingstone?

The Prime Minister: The GLC and the metropolitan county councils will be abolished in accordance with the provisions of our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate at the general election, and again during the Euro-elections.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the United Kingdom is one of the greatest contributors of aid to Zimbabwe? Therefore, will she, together with our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, make urgent representations to Mr. Mugabe and his Government about the unjustified detention of Bishop Muzorewa, who was a past Prime Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and a great friend of the United Kingdom? He has been detained without trial for eight months now. Will my right hon. Friend do something about it, and will she make representations or withhold aid?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be advisable to withhold aid. As my hon. Friend knows, Bishop Muzorewa has no British citizenship—he is a Zimbabwe citizen, and therefore it is a matter for Zimbabwe. I shall of course draw the attention of that Government to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Prime Minister aware that her claim that the National Health Service is safe in her hands rings hollow on Merseyside, and similar places, where the number of hospital beds has been cut and waiting lists of people suffering from cancer have lengthened? Will she consider the petition which is being presented at No. 10 this afternoon, signed by 25,000 people in Liverpool, demanding an improvement in the Health Service in that part of the world?

The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look at that petition, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, since the

Government came into office in 1979 spending on the NHS has increased in real terms by 7·5 per cent. More patients are being treated—there are more than 600,000 more inpatients and day cases, and 2·5 million more outpatient cases each year. Waiting lists have fallen by 50,000, after rising by 250,000 under Labour. There are 57,000 more nurses and midwives and 9,000 more dentists and doctors. I could go on relating other great increases in the NHS made by this Government, whose record is far superior to that of any other Government.

Sir Philip Holland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that attempts to persuade her to intervene directly in the miners' dispute were merely a device to trap the Government into providing additional subsidies for uneconomic effort? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to reject any such proposals in the future, as she has done so admirably in the past?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I welcome the talks that are now taking place between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Throughout the dispute the chairman of the NCB has expressed his willingness to discuss revision of the "Plan for Coal" with the unions. I hope that the NUM will approach the talks in the same spirit.

Mr. Chris Smith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: As the Prime Minister has been unable to tell the House why her Secretary of State for the Environment is so frightened to tell the House what the Government's intentions are towards the GLC, will she instead take this opportunity to tell the House and the people of London why she and her Government are frightened of the ballot box, and why, as the overwhelming majority of Londoners wish, she should not face the electorate in the GLC elections at the ballot box next May, which is the democratic and decent thing to do?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must be under an illusion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement after Question Time. The district council elections will take place in the usual way. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party won handsomely the latest ballot for the European elections.

Mr. Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend spare time today to consider the urgent matter of the loss to the country of "The Crucifixion" by Duccio? Is she aware that the Manchester city art gallery has raised £1·2 million from its own efforts, and that if another £600,000 is not forthcoming from the National Heritage Memorial Fund or the Exchequer the painting will leave the country in 10 days' time?

The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for The Arts would like to purchase even more works of art that we are able to. The decision was taken by the trustees of the British Museum and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The export licence will be dealt with in the usual way. This country is rich in works of art, many of which are stored away and cannot be shown. Many people wish that they were on display in buildings that are properly maintained.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JULY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY IO JULY — There will be a debate on a Government motion on European Community affairs. The White Paper on developments in the Community July to December 1983 will be relevant. Other relevant document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Motion on European Community document 9272/1/83 on the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy report.
Motion on the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY II JULY—Progress on Report stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY I2 JULY—Completion of Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Second Reading of the Capital Transfer Tax Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
FRIDAY I3 JULY—There will be a debate on the prevention of drug misuse, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY I6 JULY—A debate on the Gower report on the review of investor protection in the financial services sector, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Debate on 10 July (EEC White Paper). Relevant European Community documents and reports of European Legislation Committee:—

Documents

(a) 4972/84
Budgetary discipline


4972/1/84


(b) 5427/84
Future financing of the Community


(c) 6681/84
 Measures to meet budget requirements for 1984


(d) 4812/84
Supplementary measures in favour of the United Kingdom


(e) 6240/84
Specific measures for energy strategy, 1983


(f) 7922/84
Preliminary draft budget for 1985

Relevant Reports

(a) HC 78-xix (1983–84) paragraph 3 and HC 78-xx (1983–84) paragraph 4
(b) HC 78-xxii (1983–84) paragraph 1
(c) HC 78-xxvii (1983–84) paragraph 7
(d) HC 78-xx (1983–84) paragraph 3
(e) HC 78-xxvii (1983–84) paragraph 5
(f) HC 78-xxx (1983–84) paragraph 1 (not yet printed)

Debate on 10 July (Anti-dumping measures) Relevant European Community documents and report of the European Legislation Committee:—

9272/1/83
Annual report on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation.

See HC 78—iii (1983–84) paragraph 7.]

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for providing time for a debate on the awful problem of drug misuse — a matter of interest and anxiety to all hon. Members and the country. Will there be an opportunity for a Minister to make a statement about effective measures for counteracting drug misuse, as that is the desire of all hon. Members?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the European debate on Tuesday will be on an amendable motion? Will he tell the House what is happening about the milk quotas order following the opportunity that the House had on Tuesday to express its views on the draft Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984?
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have a debate on the British Telecom licence? He must be aware that it is a vast document which gives powers to British Telecom to close up to 5,000 telephone kiosks in rural and other areas, and fails to provide adequate security for the directory inquiry services currently provided by British Telecom. Will he ensure that we have an early debate on that so that we can express the strong anxiety felt in the country against changes which will disadvantage people, especially those in rural areas?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider the possibility of a debate on the British Telecom licence, which raises the important factors to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Perhaps that is something that we could pursue through the usual channels.
On the subject of milk quotas, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will wish to take account of the constructive debate earlier this week. He will be tabling a further order taking account of what then happened.
I can confirm that the debate on the European Community, scheduled for Tuesday 10 July, will proceed upon a Government motion which will be amendable.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the importance of the topic of drug misuse. A Government spokesman will be taking part in that debate.

Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that area managers of the Manpower Services Commission are beginning to produce plans to rationalise the services provided by the MSC? Will he try to find time before the recess to debate these proposals, many of which are for consultation only until mid-August?

Mr. Biffen: I can confirm from my constituency interest the importance of the point that my hon. Friend raises. Of course, there are parliamentary opportunities open to private Members, as well as Government time, in the balance of days between now and when we recess. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the points that have been raised.

Mr. James Lamond: As the Stockholm conference ends its second session today, on which day next week will we hear a statement from the Foreign Secretary telling us of any advances that have been made in the disarmament talks there?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the point that has been raised.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend provide time urgently for a debate on the future of the constitution, so that the House may hear whether the Labour party has changed its views on the abolition of the House of Lords?

Mr. Biffen: That is one of the topics that might conceivably stretch to the overspill.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Now that we have reached the 18th Opposition day and the practice of treating such days as Labour days has continued unabated, will the Leader of the House table a motion referring this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure so that we can have a debate on the Floor of the House about it, or is it all part of the Government's life support system to keep the Labour party in business?

Mr. Biffen: I doubt whether this Government, even with all their skill, could keep the Labour party in business. On the more substantial matter, I must point out that the Procedure Committee could consider this matter without recourse to the device to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: In order to put it on the record, will my right hon. Friend agree and take note of the fact that next week, when the House of Lords will consider an amendment tabled by the Government to the paving Bill, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, it will be almost the same amendment as that tabled in this House by myself, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others, which the Government refused to accept? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is more rejoicing over one Minister who repenteth than in 99 votes in the wrong Lobby on the wrong issue?

Mr. Biffen: I shall hide behind the ample skirts of the convention which inhibits hon. Members of this House discussing matters which are being considered in another place.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In view of the reply from a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry during the week to a written question on privatisation and the British Steel Corporation, does the Leader of the House think that an early debate on the future of BSC would assist the House and also help to clarify the intentions of the Department of Trade and Industry on the future of the Phoenix 2 joint venture project?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the desirability of having a reasonably early debate on the steel industry.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are Conservative Members who would also welcome a debate on the BT licence, if for no other reason than that the truth may be marshalled to counteract the misinformation being peddled by Labour Members with vested interests?

Mr. Biffen: Absolutely.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Did the Leader of the House notice the statement by a representative of the Pentagon last week that sea-launched cruise missiles are now operational on American naval vessels? Did he notice the Secretary of State for Defence's reply to a written question saying that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government neither to confirm nor deny the

presence of nuclear weapons in a particular location? This means that this country could have at least 1,000 sea-launched cruise missiles in its ports. Is it not time that the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House and gave us a full explanation of the Government's policy on these weapons?

Mr. Biffen: I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was commenting on a convention which has been equally applicable to both Tory and Labour Governments. I shall refer to him the hon. Gentleman's point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As there is to be a statement after this, and as no fewer than 37 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in the subsequent debate, I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no concluded debate on the Fontainebleau agreement —[HON. MEMBERS: "Fontaineblow".] — Fontaineblow agreement until the Finance Ministers have met and until the House has had an opportunity to consider whether the financial disciplines are sufficient?

Mr. Biffen: I find my hon. Friend's corrupted French infinitely more attractive than the uncorrupt variety. I assure him that the answer that he seeks he will better secure in the debate on Tuesday than from me.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the Prime Minister's, as usual, mistaken comment about the availability for display of paintings in this country, and in view of the fact that the nation has just lost £21 million worth of drawings from the Chatsworth collection, which we could have had if the Government had coughed up another £500,000, may we have a debate in the House on the need to introduce new measures to keep within British national collections a whole range of things which are now in danger of being exported, either by introducing new tax arrangements or by pre-empting certain works of art or objects of art, as is done in France and Italy? There is a need to debate this matter.

Mr. Biffen: I accept at once the hon. Gentleman's feeling for this topic and his desire to have a debate. I recommend to him all the opportunities that are available for private Members between now and the end of the month.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 643, entitled "Bomb Makers' Books"?
[That this House urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take steps to stop the importing, distribution, sale or possession of books or manuals that clearly and simply detail the production of home-made napalm, plastic explosive nail-bombs and booby traps from materials legally and easily available in the shops.]
The motion stands in the names of myself and other right hon. and hon. Members. It has the support of half the House, on an all-party basis. Bearing in mind that support, will my right hon. Friend ask our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on whether he intends to stop the distribution and sale of these pernicious manuals, which teach the deranged and the demented how to make bombs and armaments out of easily available materials?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a most important point and I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is consulting the police. In the light of the advice that he receives, he will consider whether any additional steps are necessary. I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Allen McKay: Mining industry dispute—when?

Mr. Biffen: Not scheduled for next week, but one never can tell.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 856:
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to continue to honour the additional allowance, commonly known as 'danger money', awarded to all members of the armed forces serving in Northern Ireland.]
The motion is in my name and that of 19 other hon. Members and concerns the problem in Northern Ireland of armed forces pay and the fact that the additional allowance paid to all service men in Northern Ireland may be in danger. I call it danger money. Will it be possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm or deny on the Floor of the House whether this allowance will continue to be paid, because the armed forces deserve it?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that the matter is before the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay, but I shall refer the point that my hon. Friend has raised to the relevant Minister.

Mr. Tom Clarke: When can we expect a debate on Central America? If there is a debate, will the Government take that opportunity to tell the House whether they intend to send observers to the forthcoming elections in Nicaragua?

Mr. Biffen: This is the time of year when hon. Members, especially those from Scotland, become increasingly concerned about the date of the recess. In those circumstances, there tends to be rather severe pressure on some topics, and Central America might be one of them.

Mr. John Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the House will not debate dog licences next week? Furthermore, can he think of some legislation that would find favour with the electorate? I have many suggestions, including the reintroduction of the death penalty, which would sweep the country.

Mr. Biffen: I wish to move modestly and circumspectly in this area, and I assure my hon. Friend that it would not be with my good wishes if the House debated dog licences next week.

Mr. Allen Adams: As you, Mr. Speaker, reminded the House a fortnight ago that questions at business time should be related to pertinent and relevant issues, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he considers that the most relevant and major issue facing the country is still the miners' dispute? On that presumption, will he initiate a debate on that issue in Government time, because I am sure that Opposition Members would welcome the opportunity to give

unqualified support—I repeat, unqualified support—to the struggle being waged by the National Union of Mineworkers?

Mr. Biffen: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is referring to that minority of the NUM who are on strike—

Mr. Adams: The majority.

Mr. Biffen: The very fact that the position is fractured is central to our understanding of it. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a major topic, and it may well be the subject of consideration by the House during the next two or three weeks, but it does not feature in next week's business.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Nature Conservancy Council has just published a report called "Nature Conservation in Great Britain". As this is a matter of growing interest, may we soon have a debate on the countryside?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend could pursue this topic through the several opportunities that he has as a Back-Bench Member. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the point that he makes.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Leader of the House aware of the publicity this week about people wanted by the police for interview, who are now living in Spain without fear of removal? Is he further aware that at a recent meeting in Strasbourg the Spanish Prime Minister said that the lack of development of an extradition treaty was caused by a lack of good will in the British Government? Will he try to do something about this?

Mr. Biffen: I shall relate the hon. Gentleman's point to the Ministers responsible for such matters.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the report of the assistant chief constable of Derbyshire that there have been more than 200 instances of intimidation of and violence against working miners and their families in that county during the past month, and that even children are being approached on their way to school? The position in some of our villages is as bad as in Northern Ireland. May we have a debate soon on the restoration of law in the county so that working miners and their families can live in peace?

Mr. Biffen: That touches the wider issue mentioned by other hon. Members of seeking to have an early debate on the mining dispute. Of course, I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Leader of the House compassionately consider early-day motion 745, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the injustice of the death grant of £30 at a time when a funeral costs £500?
[That this House demands that the death grant fixed in 1948 at the then value of £30, should be increased immediately; recalls that in his statement on 2nd April, Official Report, column 653, the Secretary of State indicated that the review of the whole of security benefits, including the death grant, would not be available until later this year; and believes that this issue should be treated separately and urgently in the light of the fact that in the two years 1980 to 1982 there were 544,349 deaths,


many of these pensioners who had a lifetime of weekly contributions but whose families would be meeting funeral costs in excess of £500 to which the contribution of £30 is derisory.]
If we cannot have a statement or debate on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman at least ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to take this matter out of the present review, because before the review is completed hundreds of senior citizens will have died?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly raise the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only Opposition Members but Conservative Members would welcome a debate on the steel industry, as it would afford an opportunity to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to repeat in the House what he said to the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation conference, which was that the Conservative party was being funded by ICI?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend adds another to the many reasons that exist, and are felt by the House, for a debate on the steel industry. I should like to see what time can be found for such a debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will we have a debate on regional policy before the recess, particularly in the light of the fact that the Government's consultation exercise on the White Paper is now almost complete and hon. Members should be given the opportunity on the Floor publicly to express their views?

Mr. Biffen: Regional policy covers such a range of economic considerations that the hon. Gentleman might even be able to raise the subject on the remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend, whose constituency has much to do with the dairy industry, assure us that when the Minister of Agriculture lays the amended dairy produce quota regulations before the House a full day's debate will be permitted so that all those hon. Members with a considerable interest in the agriculture industry and the dairy sector will have an opportunity to participate? Bearing in mind the requests for debates on the steel and coal industries, will my right hon. Friend also find time in the near future, before we rise for the recess, for a debate on textile and clothing industries, which employ more people than the coal and steel industries put together?

Mr. Biffen: I confine myself to the dairy produce quota regulations. I cannot guarantee that more than the normal time will be allocated for that debate.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): rose—

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jenkin: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, which is also being made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President in another place.
The Government have decided to table an amendment to the Bill on Report in another place to the effect that the present members of the Greater London council and the metroplitan county councils will continue in office until 1986 but without elections next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] At the same time, further provisions will be introduced to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.

Dr. John Cunningham: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Tony Banks: Go easy on him, Jack.

Dr. Cunningham: Is not this apology of a statement indicative of the panic and incompetence now prevalent in the right hon. Gentleman's office? Is he aware that at 1.45 pm his office told my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that the right hon. Gentleman would not be making a statement and that at 2.50 pm we were told that he would be?
Does not his statement mean that elections will have to be cancelled in advance of the House of Commons and the other place taking a final view about abolition? Was not that the central objection to the Bill as expressed in the amendment carried so convincingly in the House of Lords?
Is not an extension of terms of office almost certain to be needed for more than one year, given the complexity of the work done by the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, and will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that there is no precedent—in spite of his assertions—for extending terms of office before the main issue of the future of councils in reorganisation has been decided? That is a fact.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who told the House:
It would have been bad to extend the period of election beyond the term of election of councillors".—[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 524.]

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite wrong. I said that the Government would consider a number of options in response to the amendment passed in another place. We have done that and I have now made a statement to the House giving the outline of our conclusions. I find the criticisms of the proposal which I have put before the House and which will be moved in another pace a little strange. After all, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on Second Reading of the paving Bill, said:
I can sympathise with the Secretary of State's claim that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. I fully realise that,


but the natural thing to do in those circumstances is to allow local authorities to continue in existence for another year." — [Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 469.]
Since that is precisely what we are doing, I cannot understand the complaint.

Mr. Francis Pym: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are much relieved that the quangos that were to be brought into existence to take over from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will not now come into existence? May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? Does he appreciate that the manner in which the reform is carried through is extremely important? How will he make the Government's decisions known to the House? Will he ensure that some document—White Paper, report—is debated by the House before the Second Reading of the main Bill? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the debate that has raged sharply over the controversy in the last six to nine month, has given rise to a feeling in some metropolitan counties and particularly in London that some body is needed to provide a strategic overview of the affairs of our capital city?

Mr. Jenkin: I am hoping that before the House rises I may be able to publish a brief parliamentary document setting out in summary the Government's decisions on the destination of the functions at present carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Any question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.
I am aware of the view that there needs to be some upper-tier authority to take an overview. That is not Her Majesty's Government's view. We believe that the services currently carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils can be devolved upon the true organs of local government—the local borough and district councils.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State now admit that the proposals, which were his idea and which he persuaded the Cabinet to adopt, were unconstitutional and wrong? Will he assure the House, since they were his idea, that it will not be he who will take us through the next proposals? Most importantly, for whatever period the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the councils will run, will members of his party propose to fight any by-elections that might arise, or do they propose to boycott them as further evidence that they do not really believe in democracy after all?

Mr. Jenkin: There is no question of who takes the Bill through in another place. In this place, the other Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The legislation will, of course, allow by-elections to continue. Arrangements will no doubt be made in the main Bill. The question of fighting by-elections is a matter for local Conservative associations.

Sir Ian Gilmour: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his timely and necessary concession? Will he bear in mind — it is important that he does so because the same thing may happen in the next Session—that it would be far better to pay attention to the overwhelming argument in this House than to wait to be pressurised by an adverse vote in another place?

Mr. Jenkin: Although I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind words, I am entitled to point out that the

paving Bill secured a Third Reading in this House by a majority of 128. The Government take full heed of points that are made, and the response that I have announced to the proceedings in another place is a demonstration of that.

Mr. Harry Cowans: When the Secretary of State made his statement, he said that he was pleased to do so. He could have fooled me, and I think that he could have fooled the whole House. I have never seen a man who looked less pleased.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, not only to tie House but—more importantly—to those outside, why his Government are afraid of the ballot box? They advocate ballots very loudly in other areas, but when it is within their power to allow the people to speak they deny them the right to do so. Why?

Mr. Jenkin: It is fully in accordance with precedent that, during a reorganisation of the structure of local government, elections are suspended. That is what we are doing in this case. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we won the election in 1983 and that we won the Euro-election last month.

Mr. David Howell: The move that my right hon. Friend has announced today is thoroughly sensible, and many of us are strongly in favour of devolving more functions to the London boroughs and getting rid of the GLC. However, my right hon. Friend would find that his policies commanded much more support if he recognised the need for a London-wide government to be included in the replacement arrangements to deal with London-wide matters which would otherwise be lost in Whitehall and in various quangos.

Mr. Jenkin: The Government are very familiar with my right hon. Friend's argument. We have considered that point very carefully. Like the leaders of the London boroughs, whom we have consulted, we believe that the services are best devolved to the London boroughs themselves. Such issues will be debated at length when the main abolition Bill is presented to the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: We all now realise that the Secretary of State has a glorious future behind him. Is he aware that his statement will solve nothing at all? Dismantling the Greater London council would take considerably longer than a year even if there was goodwill in county hall towards the Secretary of State—and there is very little goodwill at the moment. What advice will the Secretary of State give his successor? In about a year, someone will have to decide whether to extend the present GLC for a further year. Shall I be a GLC member for life, until the right hon. Gentleman gets his act together?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has played a full part in our proceedings on the Bill. It is within his power to influence his colleagues to make sure that, if the Bill is approved by the House, the transition is achieved smoothly and successfully. On the other hand, he could behave in a difficult and obstructive manner. The choice lies with him. The Government intend to complete the abolition and the handover by April 1986.

Mr. John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely supported and welcomed by the majority of London Members. He has reaffirmed the abolition of an unwanted tier of local government and the restoration of the services to local


democracy. Further, he is determined to ensure that the wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of ratepayers' money will be curtailed.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For the details of the arrangements, my hon. Friend will have to wait for the tabling of amendments in another place.

Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the record of bumbling and bodging surrounding the legislation—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. He is an expert in bumbling and bodging.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cartwright: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will succeed in his stated aim of winding up the GLC by April 1986? There is a real risk that the effect of what he has said this afternoon will be to inflict the Livingstone regime on Londoners for two years after the end of the term for which it was elected.

Mr. Jenkin: The period would be one year. However, I. reject the hon. Gentleman's description. Legislation was passed in this House, an amendment was passed in another place, and the Government have responded to that amendment. I cannot conceive why that should be regarded as bumbling and bodging.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for explaining to the House the Government's proposed course of action, which seems to make good sense. Is he aware, however, that support for the abolition Bill next Session will still depend upon the Government's ability to demonstrate clearly that what follows abolition will be more efficient and cost-effective and will provide a better deal for the ratepayers?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a burden of proof which I shall be happy to discharge.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State's party did not win the European elections in London. In London, those elections were won by the Labour party. That shows clearly that the people of London are angry not just about the abolition of the GLC, but about the removal of their right to vote for the GLC in May 1985. Why is the Secretary of State still intent on taking away that democratic right?

Mr. Jenkin: I have made it clear that it would not only be in accordance with precedent, but would make very good sense, to avoid having an election when the Bill is before the House or in another place. That is why the amendments to be tabled in another place will so provide.
If the results of the Euro-election had been repeated in a parliamentary election, the result would have been a Conservative majority.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all true Tories will welcome this return to constitutionalism?

Mr. Jenkin: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I speak as a Merseyside county councillor whose stay in

office has been lengthened. I would prefer to trust the electors of Merseyside rather than to have my term of office extended in that way, especially as I know what their view would be. How can the Secretary of State guarantee that we shall not have a similar squalid performance over the abolition Bill, and that in 12 months' time the right hon. Gentleman's successor will not tell me that my term of office has been extended for another three or four years? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he refers to measures to combat the excessive use of powers by councils such as mine? Is he referring to our measures to create 7,000 jobs in an area which has been driven into the ground by his Government's economic measures?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making altogether too much of this. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jenkin: The legislation has passed this House. It has been amended in another place. The Government have announced their proposals, in response to the changes made in the Lords.
The measures to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will cover the use of section 137 of the Local Government Act and measures to prevent asset-stripping and long-term contracts.

Sir Anthony Grant: The one criticism that could be made of my right hon. Friend and his Ministers is that, because they are so gentlemanly, they have failed to punch home the bigotries and lunacies of the present GLC and the futility of the GLC under either party. Let us not forget the outrageous expenditure by the GLC of £6 million to mislead the public, at the expense of the ratepayers. What will be done to put an end to this scandal in the new proposals?

Mr. Jenkin: The Government are very concerned about the use of ratepayers' money for political propaganda. I am studying urgently what steps might be taken to deal with that. However, I can give my hon. Friend no commitment that it will prove possible to legislate on the matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already told the House that there is heavy pressure on our subsequent debate, which is an Opposition day. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.20 pm, which gives us a full half-hour on this matter.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recall that a few moments ago he did not reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) about a White Paper? Will he now tell the House that he will produce a White Paper before the legislation, whether it be before the House rises for the summer recess or not? Does he realise that any lack of such an undertaking will be interpreted as a lack of confidence on the part of the Government in their mistaken policies?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard. I answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East and said that I was hoping to publish—

Mr. Spearing: Hoping to.

Mr. Jenkin: —publish a parliamentary paper before the House rises. It would certainly be well before any question of a Second Reading coming before the House.

Mr. John Powley: Will my right hon. Friend note that it ill becomes the Opposition to gloat about the decision of the other place when it is their declared aim to abolish the other place? They should not take advantage of it just because it suits them when they wish to abolish it.

Mr. Jenkin: As we have seen in an article in the Daily Express today, those same people who cheer for the democratic decision of the House of Lords seem determined to defeat the intentions of this House on this and other legislation. That is sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. John Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that his own term of office has been extended?

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by squandering an enormous amount of money, Mr. Livingstone has perhaps temporarily persuaded some people that his case has a little credibility? Will my right hon. Friend henceforth ensure that the Government's policy is spelt out so that the electorate can agree with what the Social Democratic party, the Labour party and the Conservatives said at the last election? The alliance suggested that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils be abolished and the Labour party was committed to simplifying the division of responsibilities between the two tier authorities?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the full details of the proposals are made known, the Government intend to ensure that they are understood and accepted by the electorate.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State give us a word of explanation as to why the Government have changed their mind? Is it because of the adverse vote in another place or, as is manifest from the congratulations given by Conservative Back Benchers, is it because he could not overturn that vote in this House? Is he still proud of his original judgment?

Mr. Jenkin: If I may say so, the Opposition must make up their mind. Either the Government are rigid and authoritarian or we are flexible and listen to the arguments. We have listened and responded to the will of another place. That is why I have made my statement today.

Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who were unable to support the Government on the paving Bill take no great pleasure in his predicament today, although our stance will not necessarily be the same on the mainframe legislation? Might I remind him that, when the House debated the issue in the debate on the Queen's Speech, in my maiden speech I urged the Government to tackle section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which has partially enabled the propaganda campaign to go on in London and in the metropolitan counties? Until Parliament tackles expenditure on political propaganda, the issue will not go away—not even with the present Bill—but will remain for decades.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not think that it is section 137 but section 142 of that Act on which authorities rely for financing Labour party propaganda at the ratepayers'

expense. I have already said that the Government are studying urgently whether it is possible to amend the law to stop that abuse. Labour party propaganda should be paid for out of Labour party funds.

Mr. Greville Janner: In his alleged statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would ban unreasonable actions. Will the right hon. Gentleman define unreasonable actions? Could it be that an action would be unreasonable if the Prime Minister disagreed with it and reasonable if she agreed with it?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already given an indication of what those words imply in my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us blench at the thought of some members of the Labour party continuing in office even for another week, we are very grateful to him for his concession? Having been the recipient for many years of newspapers that are paid for by the minority of the population who pay rates, we eagerly await and will carefully examine what he intends to do.

Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of the disquiet that the vast propaganda campaign which is conducted at ratepayers' expense has aroused. I assure my hon. Friend that we are examining the issue with great urgency.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government's excuse about abolition being in their election manifesto is extremely weak, as there are many proposals in a manifesto and people vote on the whole document rather than on individual issues? Does he agree that this issue is one of the most important that we have confronted for some time, as it affects local democracy? The people decided that they wanted metropolitan county councils and the GLC and the only way in which to prove the will of the people was to have an election. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid to put the matter to that test because the Government are hated and the Prime Minister is discredited?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has given the House a clear idea of the importance that he attaches to any manifesto on which he fights an election.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thank my right hon. Friend for doing what is right. Will he reflect on the difficulty that will face the House next year when it tries to get the Bill that abolishes the GLC and the metropolitan counties through in good time to make proper, sensible and realistic provisions for takeover as early as 1986? Will he, during the next few weeks, reflect on the implications of what I have said?

Mr. Jenkin: That matter has been at the forefront of my mind and the minds of my advisers since we started preparing this legislation immediately after the general election. It is of the utmost importance that we secure as smooth and as satisfactory a handover of the functions to lower-tier authorities as we can. The level of our success will depend on the co-operation that we receive from upper-tier authorities after the main abolition Bill is through.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is the Secretary of State claiming that there would be no political


disadvantage to the Conservative party if the people of London and the metropolitan counties were allowed to vote next year?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already explained why it would not be in accordance with precedent and why it would not make sense to have elections while the main Bill was proceeding through Parliament. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his response today to the vote in another place is something that we regard as entirely proper? We expect a Conservative Government to take account of votes in another place. The fact that he has resisted the temptation to suggest that the other place should be steamrollered reflects great credit on him.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement has not got rid of the constitutional argument that he will abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties before the abolition Bill has passed through this House and another place? Will he make a further statement on exactly what he means by "certain measures" that he will take between now and the abolition of the councils, if that happens? Perhaps some Conservative Back Benchers would like to comment on the propaganda campaign in national newspapers being conducted by the National Coal Board on the coal dispute before they—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jenkin: So far as that supplementary question was relevant to the matter under discussion, the answer to the first part is that the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The answer to the second part is that—

Mr. Barron: There will be no elections.

Mr. Jenkin: —while the hon. Gentleman referred to abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, they will remain until April 1986, and that is why I said that the hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for his announcement today, particularly as my constituents, who are representative of many people in outer London, are fed up with decisions on local issues being taken at county hall rather than locally by their councils? Is he further aware that they will particularly welcome his promise about section 142?

Mr. Jenkin: Those were certainly the arguments which persuaded a large number of Labour Members before the election to recognise that the GLC should be abolished.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I remind the Secretary of State that a few minutes ago he told the House that his Government were flexible and listened to public opinion? May I further remind him that there is no body of opinion in London or the metropolitan counties which supports his plan to abolish the authorities or the elections? In view of his claim to listen to people, should he not now respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and say whether he thinks that he has a future as Secretary of State and whether he intends to resign?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Dr. Cunningham: How can the Secretary of State support what he is now proposing when he specifically minuted his Cabinet colleagues against this course of action a few months ago, a course of action which the Prime Minister rejected in the House of Commons at Question Time? Why does the right hon. Gentleman—I am choosing my words carefully—repeat the deception that what he is doing has precedents? There is no precedent. When LCC councillors had their terms extended in 1963, before the creation of the GLC, elections to the new GLC followed; and when the metropolitan counties were established in 1972, elections to the county boroughs due for abolition were allowed to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman is deceiving the House of Commons in saying that he is following precedent.
Why will he not deal with the point that I put to him at the beginning? The central objection to the Bill, as expressed by the amendment carried in another place, is in no way met by what he is now proposing to do.

Mr. Jenkin: It would be improper for me to comment on what may happen in another place when the amendments are tabled.

Dr. Cunningham: Answer the question.

Mr. Jenkin: On the question of precedent, it is the hon. Gentleman who is seeking to mislead the House.

Dr. Cunningham: What is the precedent?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply — [Interruption.] On the occasion that he mentioned, there were new authorities for which elections had to be held. In the present case there are existing authorities for which elections will be held in 1986, in the ordinary way, and to describe this as a corruption of democracy, or whatever other phrases are used, is absolute nonsense.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall undoubtedly return to this matter.

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

The National Health Service

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the important Opposition debate on the National Health Service, I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
I repeat what I said earlier, that 37 right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to take part in the debate. I make a special appeal today for brief contributions.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the damaging failure of the Government to provide sufficient resources for the National Health Service or stable conditions in which those working in the National Health Service can concentrate on patient care; deplores the suffering for individuals and families which have resulted from the Government's policies; calls for an end to the promotion of private medicine and contracting out of services to the detriment of the National Health Service; and recognises the desire of the British people for Labour's approach to the National Health Service which is to reverse the Tory emphasis on cuts and closures and the drift to centralised control and to provide adequate funding for the proper development of community and preventive care throughout the country and a new framework for genuine democratic accountability.
The Opposition have tabled this motion today not only to mark the 36th anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service but, above all, to reiterate our commitment — and, I firmly believe, that of the overwhelming majority of the British people—to the principle of the highest quality medical care being available free at the point of need to everyone, irrespective of income, creed or class.
The NHS is perhaps the finest monument to Socialism in this country and, as such, has won, and continues to command, the enduring loyalty and support of the whole nation. It is a service and a principle with which almost everyone identifies, and the set of petitions which I have before me, headed "Save our National Health Service", containing about 35,000 signatures from just one town, Stockport, is eloquent testimony to that. I have been handed these petitions only today.
I say "almost everyone" because it is surely of the most profound significance that an institution that is almost universally treasured by the nation should have been pointedly and personally spurned by the Prime Minister. When the right hon. Lady had an eye complaint, she went private, for a second time, though I believe that the NHS down the road had to be brought in to do the operation — [Interruption.] If the NHS was safe in her hands, which is what she had the gall to say during the election, why did she not feel safe in its hands when there was something wrong with her? The Prime Minister could not have demonstrated more dramatically that it is not her but our National Health Service, a service that belongs to the British people but with which she does not identify.
If the NHS is safe in Tory hands—words that we shall never let the Prime Minister forget—how come that more than 160 hospitals and 11,000 beds have been

closed since the Tories came to power? How come that more than 2,000 doctors and 10,000 nurses and midwives are now on the dole? How come that an unprecedented number of senior members of the medical profession—the vast majority of them by no means Socialists—have gone public in the outcry against the cuts? And how come that the chairman of the BMA, the auspiciously-named Mr. Tony Grabham, issued a public warning only two days ago saying:
The gap between what we can do for patients and what we actually do is steadily widening"?
That has been reinforced by the TUC policy statement, "The Growing Gap", issued today, which highlights the £0·5 billion gap between needs and resources in the NHS.
The Tories have never believed in the NHS. Indeed, from the start of their Administration they have gone out of their way to express outright hostility to it. The Prime Minister's antagonism to the NHS is proverbial, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a "Weekend World" broadcast at the outset of his chancellorship, explicitly staked out cuts in the NHS, along with education and social security, as his target for cutting public expenditure and holding down sterling M3. So much for the NHS being safe in his hands. It is about as safe as entrusting an alcoholic with a bottle of whisky.
The Secretary of State is different. He is the front man, the acceptable face of authoritarianism, even dubbed "Honest Norm" by the Tory press. He is the fall guy in this Administration, a man detailed with the task of trying to convince the Tory ladies with flounced hats that the Government really care about the NHS. It is about time that the case that he has so assiduously peddled in the last year was exposed for the farrago of myths, half truths and innuendo that it is.
It is claimed that there has been a huge increase in NHS spending over the past five years. The right hon. Gentleman claims that it has been greater than any previous one. The Prime Minister confirmed in a parliamentary answer on 3 April that the real increase in NHS funding over the five years from 1979 to 1984 was 15·1 per cent. The Secretary of State always omits to say that the Prime Minister went on to admit in the same answer that the real increase in NHS funding for the previous five years under the previous Labour Government was 18·6 per cent. That means that over comparable periods Labour increased real expenditure by 23 per cent. more than this Government have done. Let us have no more of the spoof about the generous Tory funding of the NHS.
We are grateful for anything from this Government. We are told by the Secretary of State that the Government are spending an extra £800 million this year on the NHS. That sounds impressive until we realise that it will do no more than keep up with inflation. There will be almost nothing extra in real terms. That can be confirmed by means of a back-of-an-envelope calculation. The NHS budget is about £16 billion and inflation is running at about 5 per cent., and 5 per cent. of £16 billion is £800 million. Like everything else that the Government boast about concerning the NHS, their claim of extra spending collapses like snowflakes on a boiler as soon as it is nudged.
By adjusting definitions and statistics the Secretary of State contrives to come up with a claim of 1 per cent. growth this year. I am sure that he realises that that is bogus because it excludes rising demographic demands for


health services of about 0·75 per cent. to 1 per cent. a year from the growing number of elderly people. It ignores the 0·5 per cent. a year faster-than-inflation rise in the cost of medical technology. Above all, it conceals the central fact that NHS workers are being asked to take a 2 per cent. pay cut this year. We all know that they will not do so. They have already rejected an offer of 3·8 per cent. and I think that they were right to do so. It is patently true that NHS standards will fall this year. There will not be 1 per cent. growth, to use the empty phrase that the right hon. Gentleman continues to parrot around the country. Instead, there will be cuts this year of about 2 per cent. or more.
If the Secretary of State says that there will be no growth this year because NHS workers are claiming more than their allotted 3 per cent., he will be blackmailing and exploiting some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in society, and that is despicable.
The Secretary of State claims that there are now more nurses and doctors—he has said this on many occasions and perhaps he will repeat it this afternoon—in the NHS than in 1978. The reason for that has nothing whatever to do with the Government. The apparent increase in the number of nurses is largely the result of a definitional change. The definition of their working week was reduced by Professor Clegg in 1980 from 40 hours to 37½. The number of full-time equivalent nurses increased automatically following that mathematical change. There is nothing more to the increase than that. The increase in the number of doctors is merely the consequence of the trend which was set by the previous Labour Government.
What the right hon. Gentleman does not say is more significant than what he says. He does not say that he is doing his level best to reduce the number of nurses. That is what the manpower cuts are all about. That is why hundreds of nurses this year will finish their training and will not find jobs. He is trying to reduce the number of doctors too. That is why the DHSS is consulting on introducing work permits for overseas doctors and on reducing the medical student intake. Perhaps the Minister for Health will confirm that that is so.
It is even more breathtaking that the Secretary of State does not mention that unemployment among doctors is rising far faster than employment generally. In September 1980 there were 493 registered unemployed doctors. In September 1982 there were 1,418, an increase of 188 per cent. in two years. After that the Government were so embarrassed that they resorted to their usual tactic and ceased to collect the statistics. We do not have the recent figures but we know that the BMA warned a Year ago in The Times on 24 March that a further 1,500 doctors would be on the dole within a year unless the Government changed their policy, and they have not. Instead of all the processed cheese that the Government are churning out in their propaganda machine about an increase in the number of doctors, they should present us with the real truth and tell us exactly what has happened over the past three or four years. They should explain that unemployment among doctors has increased about sixfold under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am a member, and of which the hon.

Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) is also a member, urged upon the Government that there should be a reduction in those who are permitted to take up medical education? Further, the Select Committee produced a unanimous report that included a recommendation that the Government should reduce the number of overseas doctors coming to Britain. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have had a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends before he addressed the House.

Mr. Meacher: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Select Committee on Social Services. Perhaps he will tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to go around the country boasting about the number of doctors increasing under this Administration.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The number of doctors has increased.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot boast that the number of doctors has increased and then do his level best to reduce their numbers.
The Secretary of State has had the effrontery to tell us that activity rates have increased in the National Health Service. He seems to suggest that he is doing this with his own hands. I do not think that he has a clue about what is happening in our hospitals. I shall quote the words of someone who is rather nearer the coal face and whose judgment is perhaps a great deal more accurate than that of the right hon. Gentleman. A few days ago Mr. Tony Grabham said:
Far too many patients wait far too long for out-patient consultations in hospital. Far too many wait far too long for necessary operations, and far too often the general practitioner is having to cover as best he can for the deficiencies in the hospital services.
He added:
the council had become increasingly concerned about 'very considerable deficiencies in the health services.'
That is his phrase and not mine. He explained:
These were a direct consequence of chronic underfunding.
So much for the Government's defence.
We indict the Government for damaging the NHS on five main counts. First, financial and manpower cuts have damaged patient care. There is a mound of evidence, which is accumulating, to substantiate that charge. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will cite abundant evidence from their own constituency experience to support that charge. I shall confine myself to quoting from the recent report of the BMA junior doctors. The Hospital Junior Staff Committee has stated:
A document containing details of cuts reported by 41 districts reveals the extent to which patient care is being damaged…Examples quoted in the document include an increase in out-patient waiting times in one district in Wessex from 6–17 weeks, a closure of beds or hospitals in many districts where waiting lists will increase as a result, closure of out-patient and casualty departments in several districts
and a concerted attack on doctors' terms and conditions of service, including reduction of local cover and study leave.
It mentions one specific effect of the Government's cuts. The committee states:
At Clatterbridge hospital on the Wirral, lack of money to replace obsolete equipment and a cut of 2½ whole time equivalent radiographers has meant a quite unacceptable waiting list for cancer treatment. Some patients are no longer being accepted for treatment because their life expectancy is less than the length of the waiting list.


That is the state to which the Government cuts have brought the NHS.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): That report, like much of the hon. Gentleman's other material, was produced some time ago. We have had time to check the facts on the ground at Clatterbridge. There was a staffing problem involving two or three radiographers, but that was resolved. There is no evidence to support the irresponsible assertion in that report that cancer patients are being forced to wait longer than necessary for their treatment. The hon. Gentleman should not clutch at such material. A local difficulty has been exaggerated into an alarmist statement to boost his case.

Mr. Meacher: With great respect to the Minister, I prefer to give credence to those who know what they are talking about and who have experience on the ground of conditions in our hospitals. The junior doctors who work in the hospitals know a great deal more about what is going on than does the Minister. Putting aside Clatterbridge, I hope that the Minister will accept that all the other comments in the report are accurate.
The Opposition indict the Government with chronic underfunding of the NHS. Britain currently spends about 5.5 per cent. of its national product on health. France spends 8 per cent., Germany 8 per cent., and the United States 9.5 per cent. In real terms, that means that if we spend the same proportion of our national product on health as does the United States, we would have an additional £12·25 billion for the NHS budget this year.
It is no good the Government saying that increased funding cannot be afforded. While the Government still opt to spend £10 billion on a Trident nuclear weapon system that we do not need, while they continue with the grotesque maldistribution of the nation's resources in handing out enormous tax relief of thousands of millions of pounds to the rich—year after year, Budget after Budget—and while the drug companies are permitted to continue to rip off the NHS, with excessive profits this year probably in excess of £250 million, Government talk of "Can't afford any more for the NHS" is simply stinking hypocrisy.
It is not only hypocritical; it is lethal. The British Kidney Patient Association estimates that 3,000 kidney patients will die this year because dialysis units are not available. The Short report in 1980 on maternity provision — and I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) for chairing that Select Committee—said that 5,000 cases of perinatal death and handicap could be prevented by spending just an additional £25 million to extend existing medical knowledge.
The Royal Free hospital in London, where bone marrow transplants for young children are carried out, said two years ago that as little as an additional £114,000 a year would save another 15 lives. Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester says that with only an additional £147,000 it could perform another 50 life saving operations each year. Rather than save lives, the Government's priorities are for massive tax handouts to the rich who do not need them.

Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, far from giving tax handouts to the rich, the Government are taking slightly less away from them?

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that, he will accept anything.
Our third indictment of the Government is what I can only call the politics of pretence in the handling of the NHS. There has surely never been another Government who have elevated wishful thinking to the status of an instrument of policy. Time and again Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and publicly declared their commitment to particular objectives, and then have turned around and refused to provide the money without which those objectives are pure fantasy.
How many times have we heard Ministers give a commitment to community care? Yet they have subjected local authorities to reduced rate support grant, grant penalties and, now, ratecapping. That is a cynical example of deceit. The Government profess to believe in preventive medicine, but they have provided virtually no additional funding to make that workable. A heroin outbreak of almost epidemic proportions is sweeping the country. What has been the Government's response? They have wrung their hands and provided a mere £6 million over three years, which scarcely scratches the surface.

Mr. John Maxton: The Government have done slightly more than wring their hands — they have substantially cut the Customs and Excise staff, which has meant that large amounts of heroin have been allowed into the country.

Mr. Meacher: That is right. I apologise to my hon. Friend for my usual fault of understatement.
The Minister pontificates about the special health needs of black people, but by providing no funds for the screening of sickle cell anaemia he renders all such claims empty. The Minister reaffirms his concern to maintain the reputation of the NHS as a world-class centre of excellence in research, yet spending cuts have been imposed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the Medical Research Council, which is now closing Europe's leading brain research centre in Cambridge, the pneumoconiosis centre in south Wales that has an international reputation for research into lung diseases affecting miners, and the mineral metabolism research unit in Leeds. They are financial economies of a stupefying short-sightedness.
Fourthly, we indict the Government for their obsession—and I use the word advisedly—with commercialism rather than care and their dogmatic imposition of privatisation, even where health authorities have shown that they want nothing to do with it. We utterly reject that because it has nothing to do with greater efficiency; it has everything to do with opening lucrative markets and bigger profits for private capital at the expense of the NHS and the taxpayers.
The overwhelming evidence where privatisation has been tried is of a serious deterioration of standards, especially in laundering, with increased dangers of cross infection. All the evidence shows that cost reductions do not reflect improved performance; they simply reflect savage cuts in the wages of some of the lowest paid workers in our society. The women workers at Barking hospital have a wage of a mere £55 a week, but they are being subjected to a 41 per cent. cut. At the same time, the lists of shareholders and parliamentary consultants to the private companies read like a roll call of Tory Members and the Tory Front Bench.

Ms. Jo Richardson: The women involved in the Barking hospital dispute have been on strike for 17 weeks and all support to them. The scab labour that the private contractors have been bussing into the hospital has not done the work to the standards produced by the women. The hospital is now at risk. So much for the myth that the NHS is safe in the Government's hands.

Mr. Meacher: It is absolutely shameful that workers who were performing a perfectly efficient and valuable service should be subject to a 41 per cent. cut in their wages—especially when the consequence is not a better service but, as my hon. Friend said, a deteriorating service that will probably spread infection in the hospital. At least—I do not say this in a political way, because it is relevant — 31 Tory Members of Parliament have a financial stake in companies profiteering from health care. At the same time, Tory Ministers—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Name them.

Mr. Meacher: I shall name them; I have a letter listing them. Tory Ministers are forcing through privatisation, even where the NHS in-house tender is lower than the lowest private tender, as happened in the case of the Cornish laundry service—the Minister of Health knows this only too well—in respect of Johnson group cleaners and its new subsidiary.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend make a point of reading into the record—the public do not see what is in the Register of Members' Interests—the names of those hon. Members who have a pecuniary interest in privatisation, so that their constituents can establish the duplicity in their position?

Mr. Meacher: I shall not mention 31 names—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: There are 41 of them.

Mr. Meacher: —but it is right to mention a few, because of their particular interests. In 1981–82 the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) was a parliamentary consultant to the Brengreen group, one of the big privatising companies. On 1 October 1983 he joined the board of the Shipley-based multi-million pound international Care Services group. He is non-executive director of Hospital Hygiene Services, which recently won the first three contracts in Britain for private hospital cleaning. The hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) was parliamentary consultant for an undisclosed fee to the Grandmet group. He was Tory leader of the Wandsworth council until June 1983, and during that time Wandsworth council gave the lucrative street cleaning contract to Grandmet. I refer also to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), because of his particular interest. In 1983 he was a consultant to the Pritchard Services group, author of "The Myths of Privatisation" and a member of the Adam Smith Institute. He has regularly used his position in the House to push hard for privatisation of the NHS.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is only three.

Mr. Meacher: I intend in due course to give publicity to all the other names.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall make my point before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes. I hope that he will reply. The

right hon. Gentleman can see the degree of feeling of Opposition Members about this issue. This is a sleazy, murky, dirty business and it has nothing to do with health care.

Mr. Fowler: I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman, who is working himself up

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, snarled from a sedentary position, "What about sponsored members of trade unions?" I make it perfectly clear that, unlike one who is employed as a consultant and getting money in his hand, sponsored Members—certainly members sponsored by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union like myself—do not benefit by one penny.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am sure that every hon. Member has made any interest perfectly clear in the Register of Members' Interests. I call Mr. Norman Fowler.

Mr. Fowler: I was going to ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about his sponsorship by the Health Service union COHSE. I understand that he is sponsored by that union. To what extent—I accept what the hon. Gentleman says — does the policy of that Health Service union dictate his attitudes in the House?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] — I shall answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has made the obvious and correct point that no members of COHSE or, I am sure, of any other trade union that sponsors Members, receives a penny of the money for himself. My views have not in the least way been influenced by my trade union sponsorship. I give the Secretary of State that assurance if he needs it.
We indict the Government for their anti-democratic centralisation of power within the NHS. All the chairmen of regional and district health authorities who did not comply with the Government's policies on cuts and closures have now been removed. Almost all of their 192 district health authorities are now pre-packed with a majority that is pro-Conservative, pro-privatisation, pro-cuts, and anti-union.
Where there is resistance, it is overruled by authorities being swamped by new appointments, as happened with Brent. Where there is even one lone voice of dissent—for example, one against 11 as at Roehampton and Twickenham this week—even that lone voice is being snuffed out. It is a case of "Fowler clones rule, OK?" I warn the Secretary of State that he is sowing the seeds of a whirlwind, the bitter fruits of which the Tories will ultimately reap.
As if that were not enough, the Government have undermined and cut the finances of the community health services, which are the only really democratic elements in the NHS, and are now rounding off the steady drift of authoritarianism in the NHS by the appointment of the all-powerful Griffiths general managers.
For those reasons, we believe that the NHS is being hobbled by the Tory Government's hostility. When we come to power, we shall reverse those policies. Reversing Tory cuts is not enough. We need a new vision for the Health Service in the 1980s. The Government's reliance


purely on cost containment as the answer has failed because it is self-defeating. The Government have pursued their so-called efficiency savings—if ever there was a euphemism for cuts, that must surely be it—but have been forced to spend far more on health breakdown because of accelerating long-term unemployment. It is self-defeating also, partly because the NHS starts from a position of chronic under-funding. However hard one tries, one cannot get a quart out of a pint pot.
None of the fundamental problems of the NHS—deteriorating capital stock in all hospitals, lack of grass roots accountability in the administrative structure, chronic manpower crises, poor regional balance and continuing class inequality in the delivery of health care—can be solved unless there is funding of the NHS on a par with other countries.
The Government's policy is self-defeating for another important reason—it locks the NHS into a structure of care with over-emphasis on high-tech diagnosis and intensive and specialised medical care, rather than prevention and wider health education where cost escalation is remorseless. The Government's accounting mentality is leading the NHS more and more into a dead end where resource use by the NHS increases ever faster, but with rapidly diminishing returns in reduced illness and mortality rates.
To break out of that self-defeating spiral the Labour party says that an alternative vision—turning away from what we have, which is not a national health service but a national illness service, towards a genuine national health service—is needed. The Labour party will fund an expanded service. At the last election we committed ourselves to a 3 per cent. real increase in NHS expenditure each year. That is an extra £500 million a year above inflation. That is our bottom line. The Labour party will make a reality of community care. We shall draw up plans for comprehensive health and social services to carry through during the next decade, with GPs, community nurses, social workers and environmental health officers working together in neighbourhood health teams.
Yes, Labour will shift the emphasis away from over-concentration on medical engineering and more in favour of the preventive approach and wider health education. We recognise that this Government have not done that. More and more contemporary disease is rooted in problems associated with nutrition and diet, with environmental pollution, with crowding and urbanisation and with rapid social and economic change.
Yes, Labour will reverse privatisation, with its falling standards for the NHS and its get-rich-quick profiteering for sleazy contractors. We shall look to a service that is full-time for all its practitioners rather than a lucrative adjunct to the private market.
Yes, the Labour party will put money and weight behind a campaign to reduce the still tragic inequalities in health care, especially the yawning class differentials in child mortality, which are a disgrace. We recognise, too, the special health needs of women that are largely unmet, and we shall increase the number of women doctors at all levels.
Yes, Labour will reverse the top-heavy centralisation of power in the National Health Service, and we will reverse the crude political patronage and blatant partisan loading of health authorities. We will strengthen the CHCs and we will inject a real element of democratic

accountability into the administrative structure so that local services are genuinely responsive to local demand and consumer complaints.
That is a new and profoundly better vision for Britain's health services than the miserable obsession with cuts that we have now. I believe that it will be backed by the overwhelming majority of the British people.
Does the Prime Minister intend, by contrast, to take us back to the kind of system that still exists in the United States, which she so much admires, where hundreds of thousands of people cannot get the medical services that they need because they cannot afford them; where ambulance men finding anyone lying in the street check his wallet before checking his body; where only a few weeks ago a man was left comatose in the back of an ambulance whilst an emergency telephone call was made to his London bank to see whether his account would stand the cost of the treatment that his condition needed; where one third of all personal bankruptcies result from people being unable to pay their medical bills; where the old, the psychiatrically ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly always get the worst of the deal because they will always be bad risks in the books of the private health insurance companies? If the Prime Minister intends to take us back to that, she shall not pass.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): rose—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly referred to a list of Tory Members with financial interests, directly or indirectly, in companies which in turn were after contracts resulting from the privatisation of the National Health Service. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you hoped that it would be clear from the Register of Members' Interests in the Library what the interests were of various right hon. and hon. Members.
I have had a cursory look through the Register of Members' Interests in the Library. Some of these financial interests are not clear. I understand that some of the right hon. and hon. Members concerned may seek to catch your eye during the debate. If I give you the list of Tory Members concerned and any of them seeks to take part in the debate, I ask you to make it clear that he should declare his interest before commencing his speech so that the House and people outside know who the right hon. and hon. Members are who are trying to bleed the National Health Service and make a fast buck out of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows the decision of the House on the matter. Any hon. Member who has a pecuniary interest in matters that may come before the House should have his interest in the Register. If there are right hon. and hon. Members who feel that they have been affronted by any remarks, I have no doubt that they are capable of defending themselves in the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Taking into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said about the interests of certain right hon. and hon. Members not being included in the Register of Members' Interests, I shall, with your permission, read out the names which appear in a newspaper article today.
The Tory Members named are Michael Ancram, Peter Bottomley, Timothy Brinton, Michael Brown, John Browne, Michael Forsyth, Eric Forth, Marcus Fox, John Gorst, Sir Anthony Grant, Robert Hicks, Peter Hordern, Charles Irving, Robert Jones, Geoffrey Lawler, Anthony Marlow, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, Tim Renton, Sir Hugh Rossi, Fred Silvester, Anthony Steen, Neville Trotter, Sir William van Straubenzee and John Whitfield. They are wets, jets and dries from top to bottom, but they are all trying to line their pockets out of the National Health Service and the misery of thousands of ordinary people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: rose—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when I am on my feet.
If any hon. Member whose name has been referred to in that catalogue is called during the debate and he or she has an interest in the matters under discussion, I have no doubt that he or she will make that interest clear.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House what action should be taken by the House where the hon. Member himself is not a substantial shareholder in a private contract cleaning company or contract catering company which could benefit from Government policies but where a substantial shareholding is held by the husband or wife of the hon. Member or by close members of his or her family? Do you not think that it is a gross interference in our democracy if substantial family benefits can accrue from a decision taken by Members of the House in support of the Government's policy on privatisation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has discussed these matters several times in the past. It is up to each hon. Member to make his or her position clear during the debate. I doubt whether it is necessary for me to add to the ruling that I have already given.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are more than 40 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to take part in the debate. The more time we spend in this fashion, the less time there is for hon. Members to speak in the debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the list of hon. Members which the hon. Member for Bolsover read to the House, he mentioned the name of one Michael Ancram. If I am correct, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is a Minister and is not permitted to have any vested interest. I put it to you clearly that either the hon. Member for Bolsover withdraws what he said or an inquiry has to be held into whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has a vested interest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is as capable of taking care of himself as any other hon. Member.
I think that we ought now to get on with the debate.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) read a list

containing the names of two hon. Members with my own surname. Since my hon. Friend has a pronounced Derbyshire accent, I am anxious that people outside should know that I, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, have no such financial interest.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) drawing attention to the allegation by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Mr. Michael Ancram had interests in these matters.
My understanding is based on information supplied to a number of hon. Members. According to that, Mr. Michael Ancram owns 1,491 shares in Grand Met Catering Services, which is a subsidiary of Grand Metropolitan. If that is true, what action can you take to ensure that the procedures whereby Ministers are not allowed to have shareholdings in companies is observed by this hon. Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I draw attention to the long-standing convention of the House that an hon. Member is referred to not but name by indirectly and usually by reference to his constituency.
Turning to the more substantial point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), hon. Members should be very careful about using the privilege bestowed upon them by the House in making remarks which reflect on the characters of other hon. Members, whether they are Ministers or otherwise. Until the contrary has been determined, we must assume that all hon. Members are honourable in their conduct and that Ministers observe the rules relating to the conditions of their taking office.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really ought to get on with the debate. We are wasting a great deal of time on points of order.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that if the Minister holds shares, either there should be an inquiry or a statement should be made. My hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that under the cloak of points of order hon. Members will not seek to hold a debate on hypothetical assumptions about Ministers' or any other hon. Member's conduct. We should get on with the Opposition day debate.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister concerned is now in the Chamber. One would have thought that he would now be willing to make a statement whether the list that was read out was true. It would be simple for him to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You just remarked that Members of Parliament should be careful not to abuse their privilege to name people in the House. I remind you that I have not acted under the cloak of privilege. What I read from a newspaper I am prepared to repeat outside, as the newspaper did in today's edition, and no doubt many other newspapers will. It is not a question of privilege as far as


I am concerned. Those names are public. If anyone in the House is upset by the publication of those names, he should deal with the newspaper that printed them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I remind the House that the rules governing ministerial conduct are matters not for the House but for the Government.

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
congratulates the Government on its record of increasing the resources and efficiency of the National Health Service; applauds the higher level of service provided by the National Health Service and its staff which this has made possible; and supports the Government in its determination to maintain and develop a modern health service, giving maximum value to the public as patients and taxpayers.
This debate marks several anniversaries. Perhaps not as notable at the 36th anniversary of the National Health Service but interesting in its own way is the fact that it is almost 14 years to the day since the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made his maiden speech in the House. It is fascinating to see how little things have changed in that time. On 10 July 1970 the hon. Gentleman said that no one should rely on his "personal artistry" in putting forward his constituents' case. Having listened to his speech, the House will agree that the hon. Gentleman got his self-assessment absolutely right. He put a bad case extremely badly. What is that case? It is, first, that the Government's policies are damaging the Health Service and, second, that the promises for the future — we listened with fascination to the hon. Gentleman's manifesto—made by the Labour party were established by its record when it was in government.
Let us go back to 1978, which was a rather more meaningful anniversary. It was the 30th anniversary of the Health Service and the last year in power of the Labour Government. What was being said then about Labour's policies for the Health Service? What praise was being heaped upon Labour's health Ministers? The Sunday Times commemorated the success of Labour policies with a three-part series entitled "Crisis in the NHS". The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. James Cameron. In 1978, he was calling for a £1 billion injection of money into the Health Service. Speaking of Labour's policies, he told the BMA's annual representative meeting:
The National Health Service in Britain is sick. It is inadequate and impersonal and it is losing the confidence of the medical profession and the public. The idealism so apparent when the NHS was started 30 years ago has been dissipated by lack of adequate resources.
A special conference was organised by the Trades Union Congress on 29 June 1978 to mark that 30th anniversary. The chairman of the TUC social insurance committee, Mr. Parry, said in opening the conference:
It cannot be denied, by even the most committed supporter of the NHS, that we do face real problems…there have been cutbacks in capital spending leading to delays in using new facilities; there have been hospital closures purely for reasons of economy; there are lengthening waiting lists; and there have been all the problems arising from the shortage of the finance needed to ease the problems of change. There is the crime of nurse unemployment".
All that was said about the Labour Government in 1978. The then Secretary of State for Social Services, now in another place, was struggling to defend his record at a Confederation of Health Service Employees conference when he said:

Don't believe those who try to suggest that closures are evidence that the Government is starving the health service of funds. The reverse is in fact the case.
That was the line of a Labour Government who closed 272 hospitals—around 100 more than in the same period since. Therefore, when I see in the motion before the House talk of condemning the Government for "cuts and closures", I say that the motion is amazing not only for its inadequacy but for its total hypocrisy.
At the same time in 1978, from around the country there came complaints particularly about hospital building, because in 1977–78 capital spending was cut back by 22 per cent. in real terms, just part of a total cut of 35 per cent. over the lifetime of the Labour Government—the biggest capital cuts in the history of the Health Service. The hon. Member for Oldham, West gave the explanation with absolute accuracy in his book "Socialism with a Human Face", in which he said:
Public expenditure was in 1976–78 for the first time since the war cut back, not only below planned levels of increase, but absolutely in real terms.
In other words, mismanagement of the economy had driven the Labour Government to the International Monetary Fund and the result was changes in policy that vitally affected the lives of the sick, the poor and the old. So I say to the hon. Gentleman first and foremost that we in the Government do not intend to take lectures from a member of that Labour Government, who led the NHS first into crisis and then into chaos. However, further than that, there is every reason to believe that they would do exactly the same again. It is quite clear that, even after five years' opposition, the Labour party has learnt precisely nothing. It has certainly not learnt that a successful social policy has to be based on economic policy.
That brings me to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's case—the attack on the Government. Let us first get the facts straight and take some of the measures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On finance, the facts are that the Government have increased spending on the NHS from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to over £16 billion in the current year. That is an increase of 18 per cent. more than inflation. We provided £800 million extra for the NHS in our public expenditure plans for this year, and, far from cutting back, we have now provided a further £200 million to meet the vast majority of the costs of the review body awards to doctors and nurses. We have provided the money to sustain real growth in services sufficient to meet the needs of the growing number of elderly people in the population. But what is more—surely this is crucial—the health authorities are now doing more than ever before to help patients in their own areas by improving efficiency and productivity. This year they have already put forward plans from which they estimate they will be able to save almost £100 million to develop services in England alone. That money is over and above the extra resources provided by the taxpayer. It is money that will not only meet the small contribution that authorities are making to pay costs but enable them to continue to make real improvements in services.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Es the Secretary of State aware that what he calls a small contribution from health authorities amounts, in the case of my health authority, to £100,000 which it does not have. In order to find it, we shall have to close community facilities. Does he think that that is fair?

Mr. Fowler: My point about the position throughout all the regions is that the regions and health authorities put forward proposals which, by their own measure, save £100 million. In other words, with the resources that we are providing and the resources from the health authorities, almost £200 million is available. From that only 20 per cent. or £36 million is required for the pay award.
The truth about capital spending is that we are restoring the programme after the wasted years of the Labour Government. We have increased capital spending from £365 million in 1978–79 to £719 million in 1983–84. That is a real increase of a quarter and means that we have reversed nearly all the damage which the Labour Government inflicted.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if he compared the average amount of capital spending in real terms on hospital building under the Labour Government of 1974–79 with that of the present Government during their full period of office, they would show that the Labour Government spent more on average per year than the Conservative Government?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman raised that question before. He is profoundly wrong. I have the figures for both the real and the cash increases. They show that between 1974 and 1979 capital spending under the Labour Government was reduced to £582 million. The hon. Gentleman cannot establish that that average capital spending is miraculously more than what is now being spent.

Mr. Dobson: I shall repeat my question so that the Secretary of State does not deliberately mislead the House and escape from answering the question by attempting to misunderstand my question. Will he confirm that if he took the figures in real terms, totalled them for the five year periods of the Labour and Tory Governments respectively, and divided each total by five, the Tory figure would be lower?

Mr. Fowler: I will not confirm that. I check my facts before I come to the House. However, I will confirm that the previous Labour Government presided over a 35 per cent. cut in capital spending. That is a fact and there is no use in the hon. Gentleman looking shifty about it. That is the truth about the Labour Government's capital spending programme. We have increased that capital spending. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, even with his ingenuity in playing with figures.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the north-west regional hospital authority has enabled the Lancaster health district to bring phase three of its hospital building forward by 10 years?

Mr. Fowler: I shall come to precisely such points. For 1984–85 we are providing for an increase in capital spending by health authorities over their allocations to show the importance that we attach to building new hospitals and maintaining old hospitals better. Health authorities showed their commitment to this objective by using some of the revenue they saved last year by more efficient use of manpower to pay for an extra £40 million worth of capital investment.
We are now seeing the results of that. In the 12 months since the general election 15 major new hospital development schemes have been opened. Ten of those

were started in the lifetime of the Government. That means that there will be better hospitals in Newham, Orpington, Huntingdon, Maidstone, Macclesfield, Croydon, Ipswich, Dudley, Salford and Rotherham.
Those developments are symbols of the commitment of the Government to the future of the NHS and the capital programme. But they are only a part of the story. In total 23 schemes worth over £2 million are expected to reach completion this year. They are just part of our programme of 140 schemes, each of which costs more than £2 million and which are being planned, designed or under construction today.
Another major scheme is being added to the programme today. I have today given final approval to the board of governors of the National Heart and Chest hospitals to proceed with the building of a new centre for the treatment of heart and lung disease near to the Brompton hospital in London. It will provide 200 beds, including 50 for children, an intensive care unit and six operating theatres. It will also enable the Cardiothoracic Institute to proceed with its plans to improve its research facilities on an adjacent site. The project will cost some £15 million and is an example of co-operation between the health service, which will meet the bulk of the costs, the University of London and voluntary and private interests. That new development will create Britain's most important single centre for medical and surgical treatment of heart and lung diseases and should enable the hospitals and the Cardiothoracic Institute to maintain their international standing in treatment, teaching and research in this vital field.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I will not give way. The new cardiothoracic centre, like the other developments now under way, will enable us to continue to provide better services in better conditions to more patients.
That surely brings us to the heart of the health debate. Ultimately what matters in the health service is not a measure of the resources that are devoted nor the manpower that is employed. No service should or can be judged on those criteria. In the health service what matters above all is the number of patients treated and the illness which is prevented. What matters is the service we can provide for patients. In those terms the Government's record is quite clear. More patients are being treated and more services are being provided than ever before in the history of the NHS. I shall compare 1978 with 1982. In England there were almost 500,000 more hospital inpatient and day cases in 1982 than in 1978; nearly 2 million more attendances at outpatient and accident departments in 1982 than in 1978; and nearly 500,000 more people visited at home by health visitors and district nurses in 1982 than in 1978—

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: rose—

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman does not like the facts, but I shall not give way. The debate was delayed by ludicrous points of orders and I shall give the facts to the House whether hon. Members like them or not.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Fowler: I shall repeat those facts so that the hon. Gentleman can grasp them. There were nearly 500,000 more people being visited at home by health visitors and district nurses in 1982 than 1978; there were 30 per cent. more total hip replacements, and nearly twice as many coronary artery by-pass grafts in 1982 as in 1978; and there were more than 50 per cent. more kidney transplants in 1982 than in 1978.
Let me be clear and frank, in the way that the hon. Member for Oldham, West was not today, and never is. I in no way want to suggest that the Health Service is without problems. That would be an absurd case. My case is that the Government are not just tackling those problems, but are making unprecedented progress in tackling them. During the five years in which the last Labour Government held office, the number of patients treated annually in hospitals in England increased by 1 million only. In the first four years of this Government, that total rose by over 2·25 million.
In fact, the only thing which has slowed progress in the last few years has been the industrial action in the Health Service in 1982 which the Labour party did absolutely nothing to condemn. That action did not stop the Health Service continuing to meet its obligations, thanks to the dedication of the staff who continued working. The total number of cases seen in hospital in fact increased slightly during 1982, but many non-urgent operations had to be postponed and waiting lists increased by over 100,000 as they had during the 1979 "winter of discontent".
However, I am glad to report to the House today that during 1983 all the signs are that the upward trend in patients treated has been re-established. Waiting lists have begun to fall again. During 1983, the provisional figures available so far suggest that the number of inpatients treated increased by up to 5 per cent. and the number of day patients by up to 10 per cent. That is a substantial and formidable improvement.
Authorities were also seeking to reduce staff during this period, and Opposition Members made a great deal of that. Health authorities were asked to achieve savings last year of 4,800 by the end of March 1984. In fact, they were able to save over 10,000 posts and at the same time improve patient services, measured by the figures that I have given. That gives the lie to those who think that the Health Service can develop only by being given more money to employ more staff. Those figures show how important the value-for-money measures are for patients. They show that value for money is not simply a slogan or a debating point for the statisticians. It is about caring for people and serving patients better.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman has blamed all the problems of the Health Service on industrial disputes. Will he acknowledge that, five months after the industrial dispute in 1979 ended, waiting lists had been reduced by 52,000, but that nine months after the last major industrial dispute—almost twice as long a period—because of the Government's economies and their so-called increases in efficiency, they had managed to reduce the waiting list by 22,000 only?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. He has had the figures explained to him as clearly as I can. More patients are now being treated, and the rate of increase of patients being treated is infinitely higher under this Government than under our predecessors.
There is plainly a great deal more to managing the Health Service than simply spending money on an ever-expanding bureaucracy. It means looking carefully and critically at all the services we provide to see how we can provide them better. It means constant and continuing efforts to cut costs and cut out waste. It means translating a bigger share of available resources into direct patient care.
That is what we have been seeking to achieve since 1979, and it was on our success in doing that which caused the Health and Social Services Journal—not exactly the inhouse journal of the Conservative party—to comment in its editorial on 21 June that the Government
has probably brought about a greater genuine improvement in the capacity of the NHS to deliver services efficiently than most of its predecessors. It has now left the NHS in a better position to carry out its major management function of making the most effective use of resources.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I am not giving way. Let me make that clear.
We have taken a number of measures to improve Health Service management. We have, for example, set up the Rayner scrutinies — scrutinies of aspects of Health Service performance carried out, not by the Government but by people who work in the service. They have shown substantial scope for savings—in a transport service, with 25 per cent. of its vehicles surplus to requirement; in an advertising system which uses £8 million a year on advertisements to its own staff; in owning residential accommodation worth over £1 billion, much of which is sub-standard and over 20 per cent. of which is simply standing empty.
We have the programme of performance indicators. They have already revealed major discrepancies of performance between similar health districts and similar authorities. Why is it, for example, that when we study the cost of catering for patients in large acute hospitals we see that the most expensive 30 hospitals spend at least 75 per cent. more per patient per day than the least expensive 30 hospitals? The job for management is to ask why those differences occur and where improvements can be made.

Mr. Campbell Savours: Perhaps they give them food.

Mr. Fowler: I expect a superficial remark like that from the hon. Gentleman, with his profound ignorance of this subject.
We have the policy of competitive tendering—about which the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been talking. The basic fact that he must remember is that the domestic services—cleaning, catering and laundry—cost the NHS about £1 billion a year. If the in-house organisation can do the job as cheaply and effectively as anyone else, they will keep the contract, but there is no monopoly of talent in cleaning in the public sector. At the Ministry of Defence, where hospital cleaning has already been contracted out, savings of up to 20 per cent. have been achieved. The most recent eight contracts let in the Health Service have saved over £1 million a year for spending on patient care. A single laundry contract—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like hearing this, but they will hear it — in north Warwickshire will be saving the health authority nearly £250,000 over the next three years. The sense of the policy should be clear. So I say to the hon. Gentleman, it is not


for us to defend this policy. It is rather for him to explain to the taxpayer and to patients on waiting lists why Health Service money should be used unnecessarily on cleaning, laundry and catering when it can go to patient care.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose

Mr. Fowler: All those policies were endorsed by Roy Griffiths and his team in their review of management in the Health Service.

Mr. John Maxton: rose

Mr. Fowler: I apologise. I have been constrained to keep my remarks to the necessary minimum. Unnecessary points of order delayed the start of my speech.
Those are just some of the ways in which we will be helping Health Service general managers to achieve better quality and better directed care. We need clearer cut decision taking and more effective follow-up of decisions in the Health Service. We need cost improvement programmes.
At the same time, I want to carry forward the policy of care in the community. Our interest is not limited to what happens to patients in hospitals. Caring for patients does not begin or end there. What is equally important is to be able to provide good primary care. That is particularly true in our inner cities. Last year I announced that we would be spending £9 million on measures to improve primary care in the inner cities over the next three years. Last year, as part of that initiative, we provided funds to health authorities to help over 200 projects for improving primary care. Only last week, we announced the allocation of a further £2 million. That is just a small part of what we are doing to carry through our policy of providing care in the community. Most people who are sick, handicapped or in need of support would prefer to have that support at home, among families and friends.
An immense contribution to the total sum of care is made by families, neighbours, and voluntary organisations. For that reason, I am announcing today that I shall be making available some £10 million over the next three years for a new programme called "Helping the Community to Care". Its chief aim will be to improve support for elderly people and for those who are mentally ill and mentally handicapped by helping those who help them — the volunteers, the friends and the family members who are day by day in the front line in care. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that even when the Government come forward with proposals that by any objective measure are taking care forward, the reaction from Labour Benches is always grudging and critical. The Labour party's complete hypocrisy is what most people find so disgraceful about this debate.
Often, those who are looking after the sick and handicapped need training or better back-up services to make their contribution more effective. We shall be working with the major national voluntary organisations to identify and support the projects that can help most.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour party is very much in favour of shifting the emphasis away from big institutions into care in the community? Will he give the House the commitment that the money made available to local authorities under joint funding will be 100 per cent.

exempt from being taken into account on rate penalties and rate capping? If not, any money that comes from the Health Service to help local authorities to provide care in the community will lead to local authorities being penalised for picking up that money and trying to provide service in the community.

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Lady knows, we have improved the position on a par with the urban programme, and we have made the rules more flexible. I was announcing to the House the new scheme which will be going basically to voluntary organisations—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question—it is very important.

Mr. Fowler: I have answered the question. This policy—

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has just made a very important announcement on finance. However, his remit does not cover Scotland. Is it possible for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for health services, who is sitting on the Front Bench, to make a similar announcement from the point of view of the Scottish Office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Fowler: Our policy arises from our recognition that our duty is not simply to provide support, but to provide it in an understanding and caring way and to provide it in the way that individuals in need want. We believe in the National Health Service. I do not belittle the problems that still exist in the Health Service, such as the constant pressure of new demands. However, I put it to hon. Members that that constant pressure makes our cost improvement measures all the more important. It also emphasises the importance of a sense of balance and readiness to mobilise all the sources of care in the community. This is where the Opposition's motion is so wrong. Our job is not simply to develop public sector services. We need to welcome and encourage the kind of family, voluntary and private sector contribution to which I have referred. That is support that the public sector never could, and never should, replace.
A few weeks ago the hon. Member for Oldham, West, Labour's spokesman on the social services, told COHSE that he would
take into public ownership private hospitals and private clinics.
A few minutes later, he was telling reporters that that was not Labour policy. I hope that in the course of this debate he will make his position clear on that point, because in the manifesto that he set out at the end of his speech he made no mention of it. I shall gladly give way if the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me what the policy is.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said at the COHSE conference:
Why don't we in the National Health emergency which we will inherit take into public ownership their private hospitals, their private clinics, when there are long Health Service waiting lists.

Mr. Meacher: Yes.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is now applauding his words. Therefore, does this represent Labour party policy or is it COHSE policy? In what capacity was he speaking at the COHSE conference? Again, I shall gladly give way if he wishes to answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will not keep inviting hon. Members to intervene when more than 40 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. Fowler: I certainly do not—

Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for the Secretary of State to keep offering to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when he has repeatedly refused to give way to Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no power of control over that, but I am bound to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Front Benches are taking a disproportionate amount of time. Interventions are made only at the expense of other hon. Members' time, and so are points of order.

Mr. Fowler: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be in your recollection that my speech was slightly delayed by bogus points of order.
The ideas set forth by the hon. Member for Oldham, West show the hollowness at the centre of the Labour party's health policy. When the hon. Member talks about raising Health Service spending by 3 per cent. a year in real terms, he is saying—although not explicitly—that the vast majority of that amount, will be taken up by the abolition of health charges. The hon. Gentleman may think that that is an extremely good policy, but the point that the public should understand is that those measures would use up the so-called extra resources that the Labour party says it will be using for providing extra health services. The Labour party may want that to be its priority, but it cannot have it both ways. It cannot pretend that at the same time it will also be expanding health services. The impact of a Labour Government would be to end real growth in the resources available for the Health Service. At the same time, there will be an extra burden on the taxpayer.
All that leaves out of account the hundreds of millions of pounds that will have to be made good to fulfil any pledge that a bashful spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench might want to make about nationalising private hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, which the Labour party has already pledged itself to do. The Labour party's pretence to a policy does not bear a moment's analysis.
The Government are committing more resources to the Health Service than ever before. They are endeavouring to ensure that the Health Service uses those resources better than ever before to achieve better value for money in patient care. Together, those policies mean that the Health Service is treating more patients than at any stage in its 36 years of life, and that is the acid test of the Health Service. The Government are committed to the National Health Service, but we are also committed to helping it to work more efficiently, in the interests above all of the patients whom it serves. The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about almost everything in his speech. What we are about is improving the service to patients. That is what the Government stand for, and that is why I ask the House to reject the Opposition motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. The shorter the speeches, the fewer hon. Members will be disappointed.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The rosy picture which the Secretary of State has just presented to the House bears no relation to the reality in hospitals, surgeries and the homes of sick people. We have heard a speech of gimmickry, selective statistics and party political stunts. I thought that the Secretary of State would be capable of making a better speech, but I have never heard such a distorted — [Interruption.] Obviously, I thought wrongly. I did not realise that the Secretary of State could skate over some major issues in that generalised way. Some of the phrases that he used—for example, about value for money — showed his real attitude. When he talks about cutting waste, what he really means is "efficiency savings" whereby the Government deem that they have given money to health authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman's comments about community care and all that the Government are doing are only half the truth. There is grave anxiety throughout the country that people are being brought out of institutions but that there is no proper provision for community care. The Government are damaging the interests of the mentally ill by not making proper provision for them. The Secretary of State should not boast about what has been done. He is doing only half a job, and he must provide much more money, planning and care.
The Secretary of State failed to explain the Government's inability to cope with the demands of the National Health Service, including the demographic and technical factors. That failure cannot be disguised by rhetoric, because the effects on patients are obvious to everyone. The reason for the failure is straightforward. Despite his propaganda, the Secretary of State does not believe in the National Health Service. The difference between us is that the Labour Government were passionately committed to the Health Service, whereas the Secretary of State is running an institution with some reluctance. He should accept that.
One sign of the Government's lack of concern for the Health Service was their handling of community health councils, which represent the interests of patients regardless of professional or political considerations. They are the only bodies which look after the interests of patients regardless of politics or profession. The councils are now being attacked by the Government, who are trying to starve to death—I challenge them to deny it—the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister for Health will tell us whether this is correct. In 1981 the association received more than £74,000 from his Department, in 1982 it received a mere bridging grant of £25,000, and in 1983–84 it will receive a pathetic £15,000 to help with deficits. The Minister met representatives of the association yesterday, so he can tell me whether those facts are correct. He can also deny or confirm that the association's newsletter "CHC News" has had to be closed, thus effectively strangling its method of communicating with individual councils and with the general public.
Strangulation and starvation are mean-minded weapons to use against an organisation that is speaking for the, consumer. It is also wholly inappropriate, because the


Griffiths report, which the Secretary of State quoted a moment ago, said that the consumer should have a stronger role. The Government should hang their head in shame and stop trying to gag legitimate comment by an association for the consumer. They should restore proper funding to the association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) eloquently criticised the lack of proper funding of the Health Service, but another major concern is the maldistribution of funds in the Health Service 30 years after it was established by a Labour Government. Those distortions and maldistribution may have been understandable for historic reasons immediately after the service was introduced, but now there is no economic or moral justification for the vast discrepancies among the health regions, which result in gross deprivation of medical care in the underfunded regions.
The four Thames regions receive an average of 6 to 8 per cent. above the resource allocation working party target, whereas the west midlands region is 5·36 per cent. below the RAWP target. North Staffordshire is 12 per cent. below the target. If we compare north Staffordshire with the north Thames region, we see that there is a massive gap of about 20 per cent. If those figures are translated into human terms, they mean that the people of north Staffordshire have more pain, and undoubtedly more deaths, because of the fewer facilities allocated to them. They face exceptionally long waiting lists, and, of all the districts in the region, north Staffordshire has the second longest waiting list. It has especially long waiting lists for treatment in gynaecology, cardiology, orthopaedics, neurology, dermatology, renal disease and general surgery. The lists are excessively long because the regional health authority and the Government cannot fund the district properly. It is important for the Government to do something about it.
It is impossible for the Secretary of State to argue that money cannot be found for those underprivileged regions and districts, because everyone knows that prudent handling of the drugs bill would comfortably provide resources and eliminate most of the unfairness in the Health Service. The Government are renowned — I should say notorious—for their belief that the price of everything should be determined by market forces—that is, everything except the price of drugs. The saga of the drug industry's manipulation of the DHSS to make itself the third most profitable industry in Britain after oil and advertising is well known. The criteria of the United Kingdom Joint Formulary Committee identifies between 22 and 24 per cent. of the 2,000 branded drugs which it has evaluated as "less suitable for prescribing". That is a diplomatic but meaningful phrase.
In his book "The Wrong Kind of Medicine", Mr. Charles Medawar claims that in 1967 one-third of the most prescribed drug products were officially described as "undesirable preparations". The Department's attack on waste is conspicuously lacking when it comes to drugs, and it is failing to implement genetic prescribing. In my opinion, the drug industry is getting away with a great deal, and the DHSS has a clear duty to respond to the committee's claim, based on official information, that the NHS is wasting millions of pounds through the prescription of more than 800 drugs known to be ineffective or inappropriately or extravagantly prescribed.
There are two basic faults. First, the Committee on Safety of Medicines concerns itself only with safety, whereas it ought to be concerned with the efficacy of drugs. Secondly, the Department should relinquish its burden, which it should never have accepted, of ensuring that the pharmaceutical industry is a strong industry. It should ensure that that industry stands on its own two feet. This buttressing of the drugs industry by the DHSS is inexcusable. If the drugs industry wants a subsidy, it should go to the Department of Industry and ask for one outright. It should not be working hand in glove with the DHSS on a hidden subsidy. That is quite wrong.
Those are some of the important issues with which the Department ought to be dealing. It ought to be helping the community health councils and the under-privileged regions and districts. It ought to be ensuring that proper drug prices are charged. If the Department tackles those three issues, we shall get a more sensible and properly funded Health Service.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the vigorous way in which he advanced the catechism of Conservative belief in the NHS and our commitment to it, which I share. He gave a catalogue of new hospitals that have been started under this Government. That was a more impressive list than the small one wielded earlier by the Opposition.
My right hon. Friend omitted from that list a hospital that is of great interest to me—the Hemel Hempstead general hospital. Bearing in mind what the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said about the Labour party's passionate commitment to the NHS, it is interesting to note that phase 1 of the Hemel Hempstead general hospital was cancelled by the last Labour Government and has now been brought into the programme by the present Conservative Administration. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who I know enjoyed his visit to Hemel Hempstead to see for himself the difficult conditions which will now be much improved as a result of his decision.
I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is familiar with my constituency, as that is where he went to public school. He ought to visit the consituency again to see what Conservatives have brought to the people of that area.
The debate has rightly concentrated on the total resources devoted to the NHS, but it is also about the distribution of resources and the efficiency of that distribution within the NHS. I represent an under-resourced district within an over-resourced region, and while I have much sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said about the problems of his district—he referred to over-provision in regions such as the Thames regions — I draw his attention to the fact that not all districts within those regions are in the same position. Those with growing populations such as my own are placed under particular strain.
When money is diverted from areas such as north-west Thames to other areas of the country, the strain on the under-resourced districts increases, because when a region is losing money it is more difficult to redistribute funds to the districts which need them. I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of what I believe to be a strong case


for closing at least one of the teaching hospitals in the centre of London to enable those resources to be more readily redistributed elsewhere.
I am also concerned about the growing proportion of the NHS budget which is devoted to drugs. That point was also made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. It is striking that 100 million more prescriptions are now written each year than in 1949 and that the NHS drugs bill is rising both as a proportion of GDP and as a proportion of money spent on the NHS. In fact, it went up 10 per cent. between 1975 and 1983.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The fact that the NHS drugs bill has risen as a proportion of GDP and as a proportion of total spending simply means that the drug companies are making enormous profits. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the price cuts in respect of Librium or Valium which are made by Hoffman La Roche, these profits are way above those normally earned in the manufacturing sector?

Mr. Jones: I do not entirely disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is no incentive for GPs or patients to be efficient in the use of these drugs, quite apart from the profit margins. Other countries which levy prescription charges based on a proportion of the cost rather than on a flat-rate basis are more economic in the use of drugs. That was a recommendation of the committee that was set up in the 1950s to look into this question. Belgium is perhaps the best example, and I commend it to the Secretary of State.
We should also bear in mind the fact that certain types of surgery which we all admire, such as heart transplant surgery, increasingly take up resources that might be better used on various other ailments. That is a worry in my area, and rightly so.
I very much welcome the Griffiths report, partly because it suggests a proper structure for the NHS, which the more old-fashioned of my constituents might call "Bringing back matron". This will also allow officials more time to look at long-term problems rather than getting totally absorbed in the administration of individual departments. That must be better for the NHS.
All health authorities struggle to make efficiency savings, but some are more successful than others. Last year, north-west Hertfordshire made efficiency savings of £100,000, over half of which were laundry savings as a result of competitive tendering, and at the end of the day that stayed in house. That will result in a saving of £200,000 in a full year. All that money is being used up in pay awards which are in excess of Government guidelines. That puts us back to square one, and we shall have to find more efficiency savings in the coming year.
It is extraordinary that in this day and age hospital patients should be supplied with toothbrushes and that some hospitals have their own cobbler. Surely we could dispense with such services and make savings so that more money can be devoted to patient care. I hope that the implementation of the Griffiths proposals will result in a substantial improvement.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would not give way earlier when he was labouring the point about the percentage of GDP that we spend on health care compared with that spent by France, Germany and other countries. We spend only about 6 per cent. of GDP on health care, while France, West Germany and Holland

spend about 8 per cent. In Britain, 91 per cent. of the money spent on health comes from the public sector, whereas in France, Germany and Holland the figure is 75 per cent. The extra money that comes from the private sector is one of the main reasons for the disparity. If Opposition Members were less dogmatic, they would realise that the private health sector has a lot to offer, not least because of the private sector's emphasis on screening, which saves resources for the NHS directly.
I draw lessons from the geographical variation in the number of people covered by private health insurance. About 22 per cent. are covered in the south-east of England and only 3 per cent. in Scotland. If the percentage in Scotland and the north was the same as in the south-east, considerable resources would be released for patient care.
We are not talking about the destruction of the National Health Service. Even if we reach the level of France, Germany or Holland where 75 per cent. of the money spent is public and 25 per cent. private, we should still have a substantial and well-endowed Health Service.
More resources should be devoted to health. That is what the general public want. We must recognise that that cannot be achieved entirely within a tax-based and tax-financed system, because that involves waiting for economic growth. The growth in health care should be ahead of growth in the economy. That means that we must tap resources from other things. That is best done through the harnessing of the dynamics and energy of the private sector as well as through efficiency in the NHS.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am one of the few in the House who is used to the National Health Service and no other system. I cannot speak with the authority of age and cannot contrast the NHS with what happened before, but on the anniversary with which this debate coincides I find it difficult to imagine going back to the former system. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) seemed to leave the door open for that to happen, even if he did not encourage it. His speech led us to suspect that the general thrust of this Government's policy is to create in a variety of ways the conditions through which the NHS will be regarded as less than the norm, and more emphasis will be put on the individual taking out some type of private health care insurance. Far from easing the burden on the NHS, such a policy would have the opposite effect. It attacks the fabric and roots upon which the NHS is based. I hope that the debate will result in general support for the principle and pragmatics of the NHS.
I should like to comment on what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, and on the general position of the Labour party in relation to the NHS. The hon. Member was open-minded enough to say that the NHS was not the prerogative of any one political party but that it was for all the people of the country. He is right. He said that the NHS was a victory for Socialism when it was established. The hon. Gentleman spoke of how Labour, if returned to office, will right just about every wrong that exists through a financial policy that he believes can be implemented.
I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's motives or sincerity. I do not doubt his passion for wanting to make the improvements and reforms that he listed. However, he is in error if he thinks that he can persuade the House or the country that there is any common ground between the


economic policy in which he believes—on which he campaigned for the deputy leadership of the Labour party last summer and on which he was defeated by the now shadow Chancellor—and that of the shadow Chancellor. He is in error if he thinks that that is a basis for the commitments that he spewed out in the last three or four minutes of his speech.
The Labour party makes all sorts of pledges from the Opposition Benches when it is known that the man who would be Chancellor of the Exchequer, if Labour is returned to the Treasury Bench, disagrees so fundamentally with the health spokesman about economic policy. The hon. Gentleman is raising expectations across a whole range of interests and areas of health care in an unfortunate fashion. There is little chance that he will be able to deliver what he promises. The hon. Gentleman speaks about the politics of wishful thinking. His speech encapsulated that defect in an extraordinary fashion.

Mr. Stuart Holland: It is clear that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has been asked by his party to speak in the debate in order not to raise expectations. He is fulfilling that duty admirably. Will he explain what his party would do faced with an economic crisis and cuts in the Health Service? Would he increase spending?

Mr. Kennedy: I shall be delighted to explain. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will hear a detailed but brief resume of exactly where my party stands in terms of financial commitment to the NHS, and priorities.
We have common ground with the Opposition spokesman in our criticisms of the Government. The Labour party seems tied to a type of health care which is over-institutionalised and which keeps people dependent on the state. It is no wonder that it wants to do that. For the same reason, the Opposition are opposed to the sale of council houses. They want to lock people into a social structure that will deliver enough votes to produce a Labour Government. The Opposition may be wrong in that respect, but they are right about their criticisms of the Government.
The Conservative party seeks to lessen dependency by moving more towards a private, insurance-based system. Yet, as was pointed out in the Government's own Green Paper from the Treasury earlier this year, the problem is that there is a relentless in-built mechanism of demand for the welfare services generally, and for the Health Service in particular. There are demographic pressures, such as the increasing proportion of elderly people in the population. The pace of advance in medical technology is increasing, and aspirations increase as a result. As we approach the end of the century, there will be an ever greater log-jam. The Green Paper states:
over a wide range of services the only means of controlling the cost is for the government to limit the supply.
Elsewhere, with specific reference to the health and personal social services, the Green Paper states:
Even where unit costs have been reduced widespread demand for such treatment may strain the resources available.
That is slightly complacent. The Minister would be the first to agree that it is complacent to say that the available resources "may" be strained. Resources are already strained, and will be under even greater strain in the future.
The great philosophical contradiction facing the Government is that one cannot demand-manage people's

aspirations for health care when medical technology is advancing at such a rapid rate. One has to try to match those aspirations. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) asked to what extent my party would try to match increasing demand, or what our priorities in the Health Service would be. We would not pledge ourselves to an unrealistic 3 per cent. per annum real increase. We would limit ourselves to 1·5 per cent. per annum. [Interruption.] At least we do not adopt the approach of the hon. Member for Oldham, West which is to think of a number or a problem and double it. [Laugher.] I am glad that the subtlety of the joke was not wasted on the Labour Front Bench. The Treasury's figures demonstrate that an increase of 1 per cent. per annum is needed simply for the NHS to stand still. Given the economic shambles that would face any party taking over government from the Conservative party, it would not be realistic to try to meet the range of pledges that the Labour party is giving. Although 1·5 per cent. must be regarded as a minimum base figure, and every possible effort would have to be made to exceed it, there is more political credibility in arguing for such a target than in promising Havana tomorrow as the Labour party does — [Laughter.] I choose my words with care.
The Secretary of State also referred to care in the community. We would certainly welcome the allocation of an extra £10 million to care for the elderly in the community. We would welcome further extension of that principle. I was disappointed to hear a Government spokesman say yesterday elsewhere that more benefits could not be extended to carers because the finance cannot be made available. More finance could surely be channelled into the care of the housebound elderly, but not by the excessive centralisation that the Government are pursuing in Whitehall and at the Elephant and Castle. We argue in our amendment that if the Health Service is to be made more responsive to local needs and aspirations, there must be a greater degree of local control. I am not convinced that civil servants, however well intentioned, are the best people to make decisions about the nature or level of health provision in the regions.
If health authorities are to become more democratically accountable, as we would wish them to be, they must also be given greater revenue-raising powers of their own. Within the decentralist programme for which the Liberal and Social Democratic parties argue, although there would be a need for a RAWP formula and an equalisation pool to help the disadvantaged regions of the country, and therefore a distributive element of central control, the root thrust should be towards greater regional authority and greater regional decision-making. That in itself would provide local authorities with a way out of the dilemma in which they are placed over joint funding arrangements. Having been encouraged by the Government to enter into joint funding arrangements, they now find that, because of other local government funding decisions, they have either to axe the voluntary organisation support to which they are committed or to face rate-capping penalties. That is a hopeless political dilemma.
Equally, greater emphasis must be placed on preventive medicine and primary care. The existing joint funding arrangements must be extended to the voluntary organisations and more democratic accountability must be injected into the system at local health authority level.
It is clear from the earlier exchanges between the Front Bench spokesmen that the crisis of morale created in the


NHS by the policies of the present Government is not helped by the spurious and often unobtainable promises made by the official Opposition. Those promises do not improve morale in the Health Service because they do not provide a more positive framework within which one could argue against what is currently being done and in favour of improvements and of the raising of the horizons of health care.
The National Health Service is facing a philosophical attack from the Government. However, I hope that, in T.S. Eliot's words
The end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
I hope that the mistakes made by this Government in their attempt to dismantle the Health Service, and with it many areas of community care and the welfare state, will be reversed in due course. I hope that the reversal will be based not on the Labour party's ideas but on a more sincere and practical argument. That argument is represented by the health and social services policies of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.

Sir David Price: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) somewhat more agreeable than that of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The latter did the National Health Service no service by indulging in his intemperate attacks upon the Government. He indulged in personal abuse in a manner not fitting to a Front Bench spokesman — I am rather more tolerant of the Back Benchers—and he developed once again his well-known conspiracy theory of politics, which does not help the NHS at all.
As an example of the hon. Gentleman's intemperance, it was not clear whether he was in favour of developments in the United States or agin them. At the beginning of his speech, he made much of the fact that the United States spends more on health care than we do. At the end of his speech, he attacked the failures of health care in America. One need not take the hon. Gentleman too seriously. We shall not help the NHS by decrying its many achievements. When we are celebrating the birthday of the NHS, we should rejoice at its achievement, and consider how to improve its performance. That is certainly my own approach. All Governments have done their best, in view of the economic circumstances, to improve the NHS. It is indulging in needless party political abuse to suggest otherwise. I know of no Secretary of State for the Social Services who did not take his duties extremely seriously.
In spite of the fact that the Wessex regional health authority is one of the less well funded and is well below its RAWP target, it has made substantial progress in the past 25 years since becoming an independent health unit. I could read out a long list of achievements, but I shall take them as read. Suffice it to say that Wessex treats more patients in fewer beds at lower cost per case than at any time in its history; yet much more needs to be done. In our previous debate on the NHS I said:
The current challenge facing the National Health Service is one of expectations exceeding resources". — [Official Report, 27 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 467.]
I think that I have the support of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye in that, as he made exactly the same point. That is why there is nothing inconsistent in my praising the achievements of the Wessex health authority

while insisting on it being given more resources. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can point to the Government's record of increasing provision in cash and real terms and why, at the same time, his critics can claim that the service is under-funded. Both statements are correct. Potential demands on the NHS are virtually unlimited. Its very success breeds further demand.
If we consider the effects of demographic change and the improvement in life expectancy, we find that the increasing number of the very elderly makes increasing demands on the Health Service. Acknowledgement of the unlimited nature of demand on the service is fundamental to our understanding of its needs. I should like to remind the House what the Royal Commission on the NHS, which was set up by, and reported to, the previous Labour Government, said:
Whatever the expenditure on health care, demand is likely to rise to meet and exceed it. To believe that one can satisfy the demand for health care is illusory, and that is something that all of us, patients and providers alike, must accept in our thinking about the NHS".
In support of my proposition that expectations are likely to run ahead of resources, I remind the House of the original estimate of what a comprehensive National Health Service would cost. The hon. Member for Oldham, West was incorrect to claim for the Labour party all the credit for the creation of the NHS, as it was the wartime coalition Government which issued the original proposals in 1944 in a White Paper on a National Health Service. They calculated that a health service would cost £148 million at the start and that that cost would rise to £170 million when all the services came fully into operation. A subsequent White Paper estimated that that would happen in 1955. In 1944, £148 million was worth £1·79 billion and £170 million was worth more than £2 billion in today's prices. According to the current Blue Book, the Government's current and capital expenditure on the Health Service is well over £13 billion. A little simple arithmetic shows that we are spending six and a half times more in real terms than what was anticipated 40 years ago. Nobody can say that that is not advance, expansion and progress.
I have consistently argued that there is rising demand and rising expectation. They have gone ahead of the increase in available resources. Such trends suggest a major problem that we must all face if we care about the Health Service. I should like to quote from the transcript of a lecture given by Dr. Bryan Thwaites, the chairman of the Wessex regional health authority, who is a distinguished mathematician:
By now, the proportion of the GNP which is being devoted to the NHS is so large that no government over the next two decades is likely to be able to increase it significantly. We are, in these early 1980s, at the turning point where the limit is being approached. The curve of resource simply must flatten out, at least in the foreseeable future…
I have already put it in rough quantitative terms on the 20-year view—a possible difference of supply and demand of anything between one-sixth and one-third. Such a large discrepancy calls for the most radical thinking; and the longer such thinking is delayed, the more difficult will be the solution.
I share his view that we must think radically about how we approach the ever-growing gap between increasing resources and even more rapidly increasing demand. That is the great issue before us. I do not believe that we shall secure a future for the Health Service unless we share a recognition that this is the real issue.
I hope that Opposition Members will agree with me, as I should like to quote from "The Way Forward". The then Labour Government said in that document:
Public expectations of the health and social services will frequently outrun supply and sometimes hard decisions will be needed to hold back some services to allow others to be developed".
In other words, it is all about priorities. I believe that we should do much better service to the NHS if we discussed what those priorities should be, tried to see whether we can achieve agreement and not play the crudest form of party politics, which is what the Labour Front Bench spokesman did today.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The trouble with the analysis of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) is that it is based on what he calls realism—the realism of statistics. Statistics are important to Governments but people should not be considered as statistics, and I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell a mother that her child cannot be saved simply because the country will not spend money.
I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) but I am sorry that such a young man sets his sights so low. One would have imagined that he would have a bit more idealistic fire and would want to achieve a little more than 0·5 per cent. The Health Service is apparently regarded as yet another area in which we must consider our priorities. I must declare a great interest as a doctor in wanting to do everything possible to enable people to live. I do not accept that we should be so pessimistic as to set a limit. We must keep working until we satisfy the demand. We as privileged members of society — for I believe that we are privileged—will demand the services that we need and make sure that we get them.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: rose—

Dr. Miller: I shall not give way, because many hon. Members still wish to speak in the debate.
The Secretary of State's speech was disappointing, but that is not surprising, because it was made in support of a pathetic amendment which congratulates the Government on their record and speaks in vague terms of their
determination to maintain and develop a modern health service, giving maximum value to the public
as though they were marketing cheese or a new brand of detergent. The amendment sounds like a market place slogan, whereas there is no room for medicine in the market place.
We had a better NHS until the Tories started chopping and changing. When, on 5 July 1948, the service came into being, an era came to an end — an era when parents, in addition to fearing illness in their children, suffered the agony of trying to find the money to pay the doctor. Although only relatively small amounts of money were involved, ordinary people could not afford them, and I remember that well because I practised in a working-class district of Glasgow before the NHS came into existence.
The NHS ushered in a new era. It was a comprehensive health service open to all, paid for by the state from the contributions of all earners, with no charges whatever.

Although hon. Members have referred to contributions in a general way, they should accept that, at the end of the day, they come from everybody, whether they are paid so-called privately or to the state. The contributions still come from the people, and if the people can afford to pay a proportion of the Health Service privately, they should be able to afford that proportion to increase the amount of money available to the NHS.
I regret that we deviated from the original concept of everything being free. It is a pity that we imposed charges for prescriptions and so on. I should like to see all charges removed. As I say, if people can pay for health care privately, they can pay for it through the NHS, too.
The NHS is under attack. After all, it was never a popular proposition within the ranks of the parliamentary Tory party. It is all very well for Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Eastleigh, to say that it was the brainchild of Sir William Beveridge and the coalition Government. While that may have been true, the enabling Bill was voted against at every stage, including the Third Reading, by the parliamentary Tory party. Today, the NHS is one of its targets. Its slogan is, "Set the people free", but I fear that it is setting them free to become ill and not to be able to pay.
I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that the cost of the NHS today is high, but we shall not solve that problem by positively encouraging private medicine. The NHS needs more money, and we agree that we must keep pace with inflation, allow for higher costs of modern technology, take account of the increasing number of elderly people in society and so on.
The TUC has produced an interesting paper in which reference is made to five important areas of medicine which, when I graduated and for years afterwards while I was practising, I knew nothing about. Kidney machines — haemodialysis — were unknown, as were hip joint replacements. In my day nobody imagined having a heart operation. Today, there is incredibly better care of newborn babies. In my day many of them died. The treatment of haemophilia is now possible.
Those are just five areas of modern medicine. Are we supposed to say that one of those might not be a priority, and thereby condemn thousands of people to die? We cannot do that. Nor can we solve the problem by putting part of the payment for health costs on to the shoulders of the people. Those who suggest that that should be done are not aware of the enormous costs involved to the individual.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to the situation in the United States where, I accept, much more is spent on health than is spent in this country. But medicine in America is more of a business than it is of a profession, and many doctors there concur with that view. Certainly the American public believe it.
I shall not delay the House, because many hon. Members still wish to speak. I am totally committed to the NHS and I urge people not to look at it simply in cold financial terms. We must have an emotional attachment, as it were, to the way in which diseases can be cured, regardless of cost. We must also weigh the cost of the NHS against other priorities, such as £10 billion spent on Trident. Not a great percentage of that need be spent on the NHS to put things right, and I would have thought that the Health Service should have a higher priority than Trident.
The public at large cannot appreciate the rosy picture that is painted of the NHS by the imagination of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, for they find that they cannot get elderly parents into hospital, that there are long waiting lists for serious conditions, that hospital wards are closed, that research is cut and that there is discontent everywhere. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would answer a simple question which is puzzling millions of people: if things are so good, why are things so bad?

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), I feel that I should declare an interest. I am a supporter and user of the National Health Service. The debate so far has concentrated on general and national issues affecting the NHS. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a local issue, one which may affect other constituencies.
Hon. Members have spoken with feeling about the resources of the NHS, and it is clear that the amount of money allocated to the service is important. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased spending in real terms on the service, as the Secretary of State explained.
There has been disquiet for some time in my constituency about the amount of capital resources allocated to the North-Western regional health authority compared with those allocated to other regions. I am glad to say that the Government have increased that proportion and that our capital allocation this year is the second highest in England, although we still have some way to go before our facilities are comparable with those in other regions.
However, there is little point in the Government allocating more money unless it is spent wisely. It is essential, before money is divided among the district health authorities in each region, that their various and varying needs are accurately established. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering ways of strengthening the general management function to secure the more effective management of resources.
I say that because at present, in my constituency, which is part of the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority, the health authority does not appear to agree with the regional health authority about our needs and the community health council does not agree with either of them. I am greatly concerned at there being so much confusion about what our needs really are, because we may end up wasting vast amounts of that valuable extra sum that has been allocated to us. That would be a scandal because, with the advancement of technology, there are many extra demands on scarce resources.
In 1979 the strategic plan published by the North-Western regional health authority proposed that children's services in the district should be centralised at Queen's park hospital, Blackburn, by the provision of 46 children's medical beds under phase one of the plan, work on which, thanks to the Government, has started. It proposed that 46 children's surgical beds should be provided under phase three in the 1990s, giving the district 92 children's beds, eight more beds than at present. The region appeared to be saying that the district did not have enough beds and that their proposals would rectify the shortage, albeit over the next 10 to 15 years.
On 17 January, the 15-bed children's hospital at Accrington was closed without consultation, despite regular assurances from the district health authority that that could not happen. The ward is padlocked and the formal consultation document for permanent closure has been issued. The closure is not the consequence of cuts. The number of children's beds in the district has been reduced from 84 to 69 by the action of the district health authority. However, the regional plan is for 92 beds in the 1990s, when the population will be smaller. How can we possibly manage with 69 beds now? 
At a meeting of the district health authority on 1 February, the district administrator said that we could manage with 69 beds because the implications for orthopaedic and general surgery treatment of removing nine beds in these categories at Accrington Victoria will be virtually non-existent. Yet far from taking away nine beds, the regional authority is planning to give us 23 more, to double the present total.
The disagreement about the number of beds is not as straightforward as that. At the same meeting on 1 February the unit management group reported that, as a result of the closure of the children's ward at Accrington, it had put forward a scheme to be incorporated in the district's 1984–85 programme to extend children's ward 8 at the Blackburn royal infirmary. The group said that the scheme should be given high priority because if it were not implemented the ward could become a bottleneck and restrict the amount of paediatric surgery that could be undertaken.
There are three views of our needs. One view is that the ward at Accrington should be closed even though only last year it was upgraded by the installation of a new kitchen, new baths and new toilets and completely redecorated. We are told that we shall still have enough beds, even with that closure. The second view is that, if the ward is closed, despite the money that has been spent on it, it will be necessary to spend more money to extend the ward at Blackburn. The third view is that we are so short of children's beds that double the existing number should be provided.
What are our needs? Do we need 84 beds as at present, 92 as the region intends to provide, 69 as the district administrator says we can manage with, or 69 plus a few more as demanded by the unit management group? There appears to be confusion among the authorities. Unless one view can be agreed upon, there is a great danger of money being completely wasted. If that happens, it is likely that the Government will be accused of not providing enough money.
My constituents believe that money will be wasted if the children's ward at Accrington is not reopened. The situation has been made worse because the new wards have been centralised at Queen's park hospital, Blackburn. Centralisation seems to be a god that is worshipped by experts. It is said that it is essential for the improvement of health services, just as high-rise flats and putting policemen in panda cars were thought by experts to be essential. Ordinary folk said that those ideas were nonsense, and how right ordinary folk have been proved to be. It seems that we must have centralisation, never mind where units are centralised and irrespective of whether it is in the most inaccessible place in the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health


authority. It seems that that makes no difference. Despite all that, it is claimed that centralisation will improve our services.
Centralisation makes some sense if money is spent wisely, but we cannot have centralisation at any price and in any circumstances. If that happens, sick children in need of the most minor operations will have to be treated in a hospital that will be three bus journeys away for many parents. That will happen if the region's plans come to fruition. If those plans are implemented we shall have beds which, according to the district, we do not need. They will be provided by the region in the wrong place. All we want is the existing children's ward reopened.
It seems that there are only two ways in which my constituents can be saved from the region's proposals, which they reject. First, the Minister could inquire closely into local needs, perhaps visiting the area and taking account of the strong feelings locally before making a decision, as he will eventually have to do. Secondly, the Government could do what the previous Labour Government did and make drastic cuts in Health Service capital expenditure. I would not recommend the second option to my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Renée Short: I was rather disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech. He gave us many figures to show how the Health Service is flourishing under his control and said that there were more doctors employed in the NHS now than under the previous Labour Government. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers, but in 1981 the Select Committee on Social Services published a report on medical education which recommended a consultant-based service. The Government endorsed that report, but we do not have a consultant-based service. The ratio of consultants to junior doctors in England and Wales in 1980 was 1:1·76. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said about an increase in the number of doctors employed in the NHS, the ratio in 1983 was 1:1·75. That can hardly be described as a dramatic rate of progress. We have a long way to go yet.
There is no doubt that without the NHS many poor families—the number of poor families is growing under this Government—would not receive health care in the sort of society which the Prime Minister wants to impose on the British people, in which those who have money can buy health care, while those who cannot afford it do not get it. There can be no choice of health care for those without resources, because they will not be able to exercise a choice.
Many people are denied health care even though it is clear that they will soon die without it. The shortage of dialysis machines and comparatively few kidney transplants are two examples. There is also the threatened closure of the bone marrow transplant clinic for children at the Westminster hospital. The Black report showed clearly that the upper and middle classes are large consumers of health care. It showed also that they are disproportionate consumers, for while the poor have the least spent on them, the wealthy enjoy the greatest provision.
Health care is often denied, not because the individual cannot pay for it, but because the Government will not pay

to make it available. The Government have used various ploys to try to reduce the cost of the Health Service. There has been privatisation of the housekeeping services, accompanied by the sacking of men and women directly employed by hospitals. In the wretched economic climate that has been produced by the Government, those people have become a considerable charge on the state. They cannot get work and they remain unemployed. More money goes out of the public purse, while hospitals wrestle with inferior services. There are unsatisfactory meals and the private laundry refuses to wash dirty linen, some of which is washed in public when the hospital decides to sack the private contractor and bring back its former staff, which it had sacked.
The Government try to save pennies when the savings are set against overall expenditure on the NHS. They have taken some odd decisions and some rather damaging ones. Because the Government have reduced the budget of the Medical Research Council, the pneumoconiosis unit at Penarth is to be closed—for a saving of £1 million. If, as the Secretary of State says, so much more money is being pumped into the NHS, why can he not find £1 million for that unit? Without going into the detail of the report on the quality or otherwise of the research carried out at the unit, it must be clear that it is in the interests of the health of the mining communities that research into pneumoconiosis and other industrially-related chest diseases continues. The benefits to the nation must be worth more than £1 million.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology recently reported that
occupational health research in the United Kingdom is insufficiently co-ordinated.
That is true. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the unit is to be properly funded and staffed so that it can continue with its work.
There is growing concern among women that screening and treatment facilities for cervical cancer are becoming more deficient. The Womens National Cancer Control Campaign, with which I am associated, has been urging women to have smear tests, with great success, but it is now clear that screening facilities are inadequate and that many women have to wait for the results of their tests, yet during that time cancer can invade.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of the famous Christie hospital in Manchester, where the consultant is having to turn away applications for cervical screening? That is not simply crass in the direct sense; it is counter-productive, because cervical screening not only nips potential tumours in the bud, but is more cost-effective than later treatment.

Mrs. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Speed is crucial if a test proves positive. Women are dying of cervical cancer when they need not do so. The test is the most cost-effective way of detecting cancer of the cervix in the early stages, when treatment is simple and does not involve a stay in hospital. It also saves lives. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. The recall centre at Southport has been shut down and 155 jobs have been lost—yet women continue to die of cervical cancer. 
The Select Committee report on medical manpower and the career structure showed the Government how to provide better health care for patients and how to fill posts in shortage specialties. Because of cuts in resources, doctors, whose training costs the country £100,000 each,


are unemployed. Therefore, 10 newly qualified doctors cost the country about £1 million to train, but because of the shortage of pre-registration posts many have not become fully registered. That happened in 1983, and is happening again now. The junior doctors believe that there are now 2,000 doctors unemployed, which is a fine achievement for the Government.
On 24 February I asked why the Minister had stopped keeping accurate figures for the number of unemployed doctors. He said that his Department had never collected figures on unemployed doctors. I suggest that it is high time that the Department did that. It would then know how many doctors were available for vacant posts.
The Government are supposedly committed to a policy of consultant expansion. In 1982–83 that expansion took place at the rate of only 1·8 per cent., whereas a rate of 4 or 5 per cent. was needed. Therefore, many towns are without consultants in important posts, and the inequality between north and south becomes more acute.
Many regions are under-funded and have made only snail's pace progress towards their targets. The Wessex region was 4 percentage points below target in 1981, and is now 5 percentage points below target, so its position has deteriorated. The west midlands was 5 percentage points below target in 1981, and is still 4 percentage points below target. To crown it all, because of the recent doctors' pay award, the west midlands region must find £3·6 million to make good the shortfall. That £3·6 million must be distributed to the districts, which are already facing great difficulties. The cost should be borne by the Government, not placed on the already under-funded regions and districts that are already in considerable difficulty.
When I asked in February how many consultant posts were vacant and in which regions, the Secretary of State gave me the figures but passed the unnecessary comment that the figures seemed to lack any significance. Surely the figures for vacant consultant posts are highly relevant to patient care, especially if the vacancies occur in shortage specialties. Those are the areas where patient care needs to be improved and where waiting lists are longest. In the west midlands, 110 whole-time equivalent consultant posts are filled by locums, and 84 posts are unoccupied. It is one of the worst records in the country.
The conditions in dentistry are also serious, because higher charges are deterring patients from seeking treatment. The White Paper shows that family practitioner services charges revenue will rise by 12 per cent.—from £344 million to £386 million. Some 13 per cent. of that comes from optical charges, which will be lost when dispensing optical services are discontinued except for charge-exempt patients.
Dental and prescription charge increases are being imposed, and the public are complaining. They also complain that dentists are abusing the pay machinery. Those are serious allegations, which I understand were made during two recent television programmes. Why has the Minister not acted on the proposal of the British Dental Association that the reference dental officer service should be extended? The Government seem content to let the dentists take the blame for the Department's management failures. The Minister should be aware that there is considerable concern among dentists.
It is not as though there is not a great deal of money around — there is. One part of NHS expenditure has been rising steadily and irreversibly under the Government, who claim to be short of funds. In 1979–80

that area experienced real growth of 4·8 per cent., in a year when the remainder of the NHS was cut. In the following years it experienced growth rates of 5·2 per cent., 3·4 per cent., 4·9 per cent. and, in the last year, an astounding 10·2 per cent.—while the remainder of the NHS had difficulty in keeping pace with inflation.
I do not refer to the general practitioner services or to some developing high tech branch of medicine such as renal failure operations or coronary bypass treatment, which are expensive. The figures that I gave are for the so-called centrally financed services. Last year those services cost £539 million. If the Secretary of State does his sums, he will find that 20 per cent. of that amount is the cost of the Department of Health and Social Security at the Elephant and Castle. Much of that cost is attributable to various boards and quangos. Those bodies perform valuable work, but it is anomalous for them to enjoy the growth rate that we would like to see at the sharp end of the NHS—where patient care is delivered—at a time of restraint and when the Health Service has to bear additional burdens.

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not want to mislead the House. I am sure that she recognises that since 1979 the headquarters staff of the DHSS dealing with health has been reduced by 20 per cent.

Mrs. Short: If the numbers have been reduced by that amount, the increase in cost is even more staggering. The Secretary of State should take that point on board. Perhaps the Select Committee will help him. The right hon. Gentleman should note what is happening under his nose before wringing his hands at the shortage of resources. That is fantastic.
No section of the NHS escapes the chill hand of Treasury Ministers. Demand for services is increasing. That demand is triggered by growing long-term intractable unemployment. With 4 million people unemployed and families dependent on them, it is clear that the demand for resources is increasing. In those circumstances, psychosomatic problems increase. Unless people are resilient, they fall ill. Worsening conditions mean that greater demands are made on the Health Service.
The feelings of hopelessness and depression which the Government have engendered throughout the population lie at the root of many of our health and social service problems. The Prime Minister and her docile followers, many of whom are making money out of the NHS, as we have heard today, have a great deal for which to answer. I hope that the Secretary of State will revise his attitude to resource allocation in the Health Service and ensure that the economies that can be made in the administration of his Department — perhaps the Griffiths management system will produce some results—are used for patient care.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): In view of certain comments made in points of order at the beginning of the debate, it is incumbent upon me to declare that I have no pecuniary interest in cleaning services in hospitals, the private medical sector or any other aspect. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) read out a list of hon. Members. As far as I am aware, he did not warn those hon. Members, as is the normal practice in the House that he would mention their


names. Another list of hon. Members was read out, and, as far as I know, not one was in the Chamber or had sought to speak in the debate. [Interruption.] The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They accuse my hon. Friends of having a private interest in the subject that we are discussing and say that that is the reason why they will be involved in the debate. Now the Opposition are complaining that those hon. Members are not involved in the debate. I wish that the Opposition would make up their minds.
We are well used to exaggeration from the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who works himself into a lather with less reason and more ferocity than anyone else I have ever seen. I must concede that the wording of the Opposition's motion is masterly. In one brief paragraph — 10 lines—the motion combines deceit, inaccuracy, unreality, hypocrisy, spite and confusion. It refers to the
failure of the Government to provide sufficient resources
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government have more than doubled expenditure on the NHS. Expenditure has increased from just over £10 billion per annum to just over £15 billion per annum. What do the Opposition call "sufficient resources" if that increase is not enough? Are "sufficient resources" £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion per annum? After all, that is only taxpayers' money. Why stop there? Why not just make it £100 billion per annum? That is a nice round sum.
We must recognise that when the unreality of opposition becomes the reality of government—heaven forfend that that should ever happen to this Opposition—economic truths catch up. All Opposition Members are well aware that, despite what is said by Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers, past Labour Governments have had to cut costs, impose charges and limit spending in direct contravention of what they said when they were in opposition. That does not surprise me; but I am surprised that the Opposition flatly refuse to join us in our call for better value and an end to waste in the NHS, even though there is incontrovertible evidence of inefficiency, overmanning in administration, overprescribing of drugs, pilfering and misuse of resources. The Opposition do not want to know about that—worse, they do not even want it to stop. The Opposition encourage continuance of all those elements and resist all attempts to improve matters and obtain better value for money.
The Opposition's pretence that they understand the desires of the British people impels me to tell them that the British people do not want resources to be wasted in the NHS. They want, as do the Government, every penny spent in the NHS to give them value for money.
The motion calls for an end to private medicine. That point was emphasised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. If private medical care provision ended tomorrow, the NHS could not cope. About 34,000 patients are being cared for in independent hospitals and nursing homes. On 31 December 1982—these are the latest figures that I could obtain — there were 2,929 pay beds in NHS hospitals. In all, about 37,000 people are cared for by the independent private sector. Direct savings to the NHS by the private sector—I hope that the Opposition recognise that this figure is important—cannot be less than £600 million per annum. [Interruption.] The Opposition say that many of the patients are not British subjects. I care that, when those people go in for treatment, their money

is used for the alleviation of difficulties within the Health Service. [Interruption.] If hon. Members possessed their souls in patience, they might learn something.

Mrs. Renee Short: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I shall not give way, because I am trying to finish my speech. The hon. Lady made her speech. I am making mine, and no one will stop me.
Thousands of small private nursing homes for the elderly and the infirm are scattered all over the land, caring for well over 20,000 people.
It is not feasible for the Opposition to pretend that if private medical care ended the National Health Service could offer beds and care to these people. It could not do so. So let us take pleasure from the fact that this burden is lifted from the shoulders of the Health Service.
In addition to those private beds, recently there has been a big growth in hospices where terminally ill people go who are not necessarily old, and wonderful places they are. To the best of my knowledge, all these hospices are private or independent of the Health Service. Where would the patients in these places go if the Opposition had their way? Hon. Members should note also that in the past 23 years the number of people of retirement age, according to the latest census, has increased by more than 1 million. The problem of elderly people is great, and so much of Health Service resources is saved because so many of these people are cared for in private nursing homes.
There is an element of hypocrisy in the motion since the trade unions themselves maintain a private hospital. I refer to the Manor House hospital, in North End road, Golders Green. It irritates me when Opposition Members turn a blind eye to the extent to which their own trade unionists support private medical care. A recent National Opinion Poll of trade unionists showed that 67 per cent. of them thought that people should be allowed to pay for private medicine; 65 per cent. thought that private medicine shortened Health Service waiting lists; 69 per cent. felt that companies should be allowed to offer workers private medicine as a job benefit, and so do I; 80 per cent. of them felt that private medical insurance should not be abolished; 67 per cent. thought that private hospitals should not be taken over by the state; and 80 per cent. thought that the Health Service and the private sector should work more closely together, and so do I. In my view, the private medical sector should be recognised as a partner and not as an enemy of the Health Service.
I could give many examples where this is happening. I restrict myself to one. At the moment BUPA is placing a litho-tripter at the disposal of the National Health Service at St. Thomas' hospital, and shortly my right hon. Friend will be able to see advances of the plans for the placing of that litho-tripter. It is a marvellous machine which, working externally, shatters kidney stones and makes operations to remove them unnecessary. Not only does the patient not require an operation, but he will be in hospital for three to four days instead of three weeks. There is therefore an initial saving there to the National Health Service as well as tremendous benefit to the patient.
BUPA has made this machine available to St. Thomas' hospital. It cost £1 million. The deal is that for 75 per cent. of the time the machine will be treating Health Service hospital patients, and that for 25 per cent. of the time it will be treating private patients.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Lady give way, since St. Thomas' hospital is in my constituency?

Mrs. Knight: No, I will not give way. It is hoped that the machine will be in situ early in 1985. [Interruption.] Surely Opposition Members recognise that this is a tremendous example of the partnership between private medicine and the Health Service.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mrs. Knight: The cost of the machine was paid entirely by BUPA. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) must try to get his facts right. It will be an excellent plan for NHS patients at this hospital, many of whom will come from the constituencies of other hon. Members and not just from that of the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
My support for the independent sector rests on two main planks. The first is the tremendous benefit that it confers on the Health Service. The second is that it is the inalienable right of people to spend their own money as they wish. Every citizen who has paid his rightful dues in rates and taxes and who then opts to spend his money on his own health care is freeing a bed for someone who needs treatment and who cannot afford or does not wish to seek that treatment privately.
The Labour party had better understand that private medical care exists all over the world, except in totalitarian countries. The Opposition should understand what they are asking for when they demand the end of private medical care. They should also recognise what they are asking for when they seek an end to the contracting out of services, many of which not only save money for the Health Service but improve standards.
We all want a good and flourishing Health Service. Cannot we agree that my right hon. Friend's announcement today of important advances is to be cheered? I saw not a suspicion of pleasure on the faces of Opposition Members. They seemed to deplore the advances that my right hon. Friend announced, but these are matters for pleasure. Cannot we all cheer when advances are made in the Health Service? 
Cannot we use the opportunity of this debate to congratulate those whose wonderful work is daily improving the chances of life for cancer patients? I have in mind the people who have discovered that bone marrow cancer can be dealt with with magnets. I also have in mind the people at the Cromwell, a private hospital, who are perfecting a system to deal with liver cancer. Cannot we all cheer that this very day a case came to the notice of our national newspapers of a tiny boy of only 18 months who had had a pacemaker implanted? 
All that we hear from the Opposition seems to decry and deny the advances that are being made. Cannot we say that these are important developments and that we all support them? Cannot we at least acknowledge that the money spent on the Health Service, although we all wish to spend more, is being spent to advantage?

Mr. Terry Lewis: I come from a local government background where members have to declare specific interests of a pecuniary nature before contributing to a debate or voting at the end of it. In my view, it is appalling that in the Mother of Parliaments hon. Members who have such interests do not have to declare the exact sums of money they receive and from where it comes.
Government supporters can go blue in the lace and Opposition Members can go red in the face arguing the pros and cons of this motion. If I had not received a vast number of letters from constituents, and a great many answers from Ministers over the past week or two about individual cases in my constituency, I could be lulled into believing that all was not bad with the National Health Service.
I recently tabled a question to the Minister asking to be told why health authorities had exceeded the number of staff cuts that he had ordered a year ago. His reply was that in his opinion it was because they had improved their efficiency in the use of manpower to a greater extent than the minimum targets that Ministers required of them. That is all very well, but one should consider the fact that in the north-west region alone 1,521 jobs were cut after the Minister had asked for only 561 to be cut.
I accept that the service has to become more efficient, but people working in the north-west regional health authority say, not that the service is more efficient, but that there are more problems. I should like to refer to a recent article in the Daily Telegraph. Even Conservative Members would not suggest for a moment that it was an organ of the Labour party. The article stated that managers at district health authority level tended to over-react by freezing appointments on the Minister's instructions, and that the policy was to cut non-medical staff. Now the number of nurses is 79 below the minimum for the area. That is incredible and unacceptable. If that is what the Minister thinks efficiency is, Opposition Members cannot support it for two minutes.
Several cases have been brought to my attention where individuals have suffered because of the cuts. I asked the Minister about a constituent who had a heart attack within 1½ miles of an ambulance station that had just lost an ambulance and an ambulance crew during the self-same staff cuts. My constituent had to wait over half an hour for an ambulance to travel from more than 6 miles away. That is the efficiency about which the Minister is talking. In that ambulance, on the way to hospital, my constituent died twice and had to be resuscitated by the attendant.
That is incontrovertible. When such things happen, ordinary people cannot understand the efficiencies about which the Government are talking. They are not efficiencies, but deficiencies, in the service. Services are being cut to get the bottom line in the balance sheet. That bottom line is not consistent with health care. En this debate we should be talking about health care. It is appalling that Conservative Members worry about the total amount of money that we wish to spend on the Health Service, when in another debate they can blithely go through the Lobby and vote for £10,000 million to be spent on weapons of death and destruction.
Another specific case graphically illustrates what we in the Opposition are trying to argue. I hope that this story does not raise too much of a laugh. My constituent, who was a day care patient, awoke from the general anaesthetic to find himself sharing a bed with another patient in the recovery ward. It was another man. I confess that when my constituent came to see me I could not suppress a titter, but then I wondered how serious the miscare of patients must be before Ministers will understand. My constituent rushed to the local newspaper, which printed his story in an amusing article, which, thankfully, had sufficient bite to get people to understand that he was badly treated and had a case to make. He was treated in what we have always


regarded and do regard as an excellent hospital in my area. After that item appeared in the newspaper, I received a letter from a senior consultant surgeon in that hospital. I have since spoken to him. I shall withhold his name because that was his wish, but I should like to quote from his letter, which appalled me. I promise that the Minister will be hearing much more about this in the weeks and months ahead. The letter stated:
I am writing in connection with a recent article…which I gather has been brought to your attention…The article in question reports that a patient had to share a bed…with another man as both were recovering from day care surgery…I entirely agree with the patient's grievances, and the report in the…Journal is accurate. The only inaccuracy, unfortunately, comes from our own hospital Administrator who did not consult any member of the Medical Staff before making his statement".
That statement was that my constituent had not had a general anaesthetic, but was a local anaesthetic case, and had gone into the day care recovery ward under his own steam.
The letter continued:
As I think the article made clear the medical and nursing staff in this hospital are working extremely hard in conditions which are not of our choosing.
The complaint
is, I think, only the tip of the iceberg and many other patients have, I think, even more grounds for complaint".
I should like Ministers on the Front Bench to listen to the next part with great care:
but in the nature of things most of our patients are to a certain extent unrealistically understanding and are very kind to us. In fact they might do us more good by complaining about the service that we are able to offer at the moment.
I emphasise that the hospital is not one of the side-street run-down hospitals, but a teaching hospital of excellence.
The letter continued:
Although this hospital now has an excellent reputation for the treatment of most illnesses and now gets patients referred from well outside the…area, those of us who work in the hospital are very concerned about our steadily diminishing services. On the surgical side we have been for some time desperately short of nurses and things are now so bad that major surgery now regularly has to be cancelled as there are not enough resources for post-operative care.
Recently I heard of someone who went into hospital to have a serious heart operation, but had to be sent home after pre-medical care because there was no post-operative care. That is what is happening to our Health Service.
The letter stated further:
In addition we have noted a small number of post-operative deaths, usually inpatients having emergency surgery, which seem potentially avoidable if we simply had additional nursing staff to supervise the patients.
The letter goes on and on. I stress that I am talking about the things that are happening on the ground in the Health Service. Ministers are talking about the desiccated calculating machine of the Tory party.
I end on a personal note. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), an eminent doctor in his previous incarnation, talked about the independence of the people in the poor area of Glasgow where he lived, who were worried because of the health care provided by the Health Service.
Today is the anniversary of the start of the Health Service and in some respects it is an anniversary for me. Personal experience is more useful in the debate than clever arguments that may have been researched in the Library. Nine years ago today my family consisted of two

youngsters who would run about for 23 hours a day if they were allowed to do so. They never had a childhood illness, we rarely used the services of the local general practitioner and even after inoculations they would run about the place. Suddenly, over a period of days, the youngest of the two, who was nine and a half years old, was diagnosed as having a brain tumour. Within nine months he was dead.
My point is that during that nine months the child received the best possible health care for the illness from which he suffered. I worked in industry, earned a few quid more than the national average—I worked shifts to do that—and I had a mortgage which I could barely afford. If we had lived in a country without a national health service, I would have gone bankrupt. We would have had the worry of selling our home and keeping the family together. The Health Service emancipates ordinary people who do not have much money from the worries associated with illness. Illness strikes at the very rich and the very poor. The only difference is that the rich can pay for health care and maintain their homes and families. Those of us who are not rich cannot do that without the help of the National Health Service. I thank God for Nye Bevan and that emancipation.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I agree with the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that the Health Service has brought emancipation to many people. I did not intend to tell the House of a personal experience, but I shall follow his example.
When my sister was 26 she had a brain haemorrhage and received the best possible care from the Health Service. If we had had to provide the money for it, she would have died then. When she had a second brain haemorrhage and died at 28, she again received the same exemplary service, for which we are proud, in the National Health Service. Therefore, I identify with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I shall comment on two previous speeches. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a great deal about the cuts in hospital provision that he alleged had taken place under the Government. That comment will be greeted with a horselaugh in Peterborough. It is a new town into which people were being moved because of Government policy, yet it was not provided with health care. Health care in the form of a second district hospital was to have been authorised by the Labour Government. It was stopped the day that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) returned from the airport, brought back by the International Monetary Fund. It was not continued until my right hon. and hon. Friends took office. That hospital will be built about six years too late. The increased suffering and illness of my constituents during the next three or four years until the hospital is opened is the result not of this Government's policies but of those of the Labour Government. That suffering should lie on the conscience of that Government's Ministers. For that reason the hon. Member for Oldham, West will receive a horselaugh from people in Peterborough.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) pointed out that because of the limitation on resources many people would die before they were treated. That is, unfortunately, true. But he said it in such a way as to suggest that it was a new phenomenon. It would have been more in keeping with our attempt at fairness if he had had the grace to say that that had always been so.
The statistics that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave at the beginning of the debate clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to the Health Service. Today is its 36th birthday and I thought for a moment that I was sitting in a Northern Ireland debate because hon. Members were keen to debate history. We are talking not about the Health Service's history but about its future. The NHS was a visionary concept and it continues to be one. I am wholly committed to it. However, I am worried that after 36 years we have seen little organic change within the Service to keep abreast of the developing world in which it must offer its service.
The motion condemns the Government's failure to provide stable conditions for those working in the service so that they can concentrate on patient care. I agree that stable conditions are important, but it could be argued that the Health Service over the past 36 years has been too stable. It reminds me of forests in the south-west of the United States. The trees seem beautiful until one gets close to them, when one sees that they are petrified.
I commend the Health Ministers for the fact that for the first time they are prepared to think strategically about the Health Service, and are not prepared and content to sit back and make decisions on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis. They understand that they have a responsibility to deliver into the 21st century a health service which is geared to the 21st century and which can provide a comprehensive and visionary service such as we have been enjoying. It is indisputable that in the years before we took office there had been no real examination of the Health Service. There was no information about the number of people who worked in the service, nor information which allowed people effectively to manage the service. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will remember that we lifted a veil from a small corner of that during an Adjournment debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) pointed out that resources were finite and demand infinite. That has always been and will continue to be the case. Opposition spokesmen should not create the illusion that if they were in power resources would be unlimited. That would not be so.
There has always been dissatisfaction within the Health Service with Governments. In July last year my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister gave a speech to the Association of Community Health Councils. He said:
Decent people have always lobbied for more resources for the NHS and criticised every Government for shortcomings in the service over the last thirty-five years. Decent people will continue to point to unmet needs in the service, even while we employ more doctors and nurses and steadily open modern new hospitals all over the country. People are quite entitled to lobby but lobbying alone never solved any problems.
Dissatisfaction with Government's performance in respect of the Health Service is good because it keeps Government on their toes. There has been dissatisfaction with management.
I do not want to take time this evening talking about specific health care cases. I see the Government's role as providing a framework in which the professionals within the Health Service can provide services as effectively, cost efficiently, humanely and caringly as possible.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Dr. Mawhinney: If it is the Government's job to address themselves to providing the strategic framework, I believe that the Government have an excellent record.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about the Health Service in this way without informing the House that he is a director of Service Master Hospital Services Limited? Perhaps he should explain what that company does?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, does he not have an obligation to declare an interest when the debate is on the Health Service and he has a strong financial, commercial interest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a matter for the hon. Member. I would say only that these points of order make it more difficult to call those hon. Members who are desperately anxious to address the House.

Dr. Mawhinney: I shall make my own speech in my own time in my own way. I shall observe all the courtesies and customs of the House in that speech, as you will discover, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The first thing the Government did was to remove the area health authority tier. The point of that was to make decision making more sensitive to local needs. In that regard, I find the Opposition's motion incomprehensible because it talks about "the drift to centralised control" and yet the Government's actions have been in the opposite direction.
The Government introduced the Griffiths report because it was clear that one of the grave disadvantages of the Health Service was its inability to manage and to bring together coherently the many disparate professions and groups that operate within the Health Service. I commend the concept of audit and departmental budgets, which are central to the good management of any organisation and certainly to any business. It should also be the case in the Health Service.
The Government have also addressed themselves to the strategically important issue of information so as to allow National Health Service managers to manage. They have already anticipated that need by setting up the Komer committee. The three reports that that committee has produced, coupled with the Government's commitment to see them implemented, and the rapid introduction of computerised records means that in the 21st century, long after this debate is forgotten, the Government's actions will have laid the foundation of a modern Health Service which will be able to cope with future needs.
Rayner was introduced and discovered something that people never knew—we had more ambulances than we had people to drive them. We had supplies worth £1·7 billion which could be substantially reduced if managed properly. We had performance indicators which revealed for the first time that identical services in different parts of the country cost considerably different amounts of money.

Mr. Ron Davies: Reflecting different needs.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right. That might reflect different needs. It might reflect different levels of management ability or different priorities, but


what is indisputable is that if we do not have the information we cannot make the correct decisions which are in the best interests of the Health Service.
Time and time again, Opposition Members must be reminded that the debate is not about how much money can be thrown at the Health Service, but about how that money is used within it for the benefit of patients. I was interested to note how seldom the word "patients" has been mentioned by Opposition Members.
I move on to the Government's decision on competitive tendering. At this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remind the House that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already declared my interest. I have a pecuniary interest, but my overriding interest is that the services that are provided should be provided to a quality, and I stress quality to my right hon. Friends, and with regard to those who work in hospitals, provide the most cost-effective use of resources so that the money saved can go towards patient care. It was interesting to note that there was a kind of stunned silence when my right hon. Friend mentioned that the first eight of those contracts have produced a saving of £1 million to the benefit of patients.
The last issue upon which I wish to commend my right hon. and hon. Friends is the steps that they have taken with respect to family practitioner committees. We could not face the 21st century with a Health Service where the demand for primary care was as great as it is today, without a radical re-examination of the role of family practitioner committees and their functions with respect not just to the service that they give but to the interrelationship of that service with the hospital services.
The record is good because it is strategically related to the future. It builds on the past and protects the visionary element of the Health Service which all on both sides of the House applaud, but for the first time the Government have started to act strategically. They are making decisions which will not come to fruition next month or even next year but five and 10 years down the road. That is a substantial and overriding contribution that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends are making to the next 15 years of the Health Service. That is a commitment that demonstrates better than all the statistics and all the words that the National Health Service is particularly safe in my right hon. and hon. Friends' hands.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) will forgive me if I do not follow his comments, because I wish to pick up the final comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). He spoke about the heart and guts of the National Health Service. From the strength of feeling with which he spoke, I am sure that he will share my sentiments when I say that 36 years ago millions and millions of people, young and old, transposed the legal jargon of the National Health Act into simple terms of reference and related it to themselves. I believe that many of those people thought that at last here was a service which did not differentiate between rich and poor, where riches did not bring gains, and where it was not a disadvantage to be poor. That was the feeling then, and we must embrace and enhance it now.
For all that, we must accept that it is not a perfect service. I do not expect it to be. I do not believe that it can

be when there are such enormous human elements involved. In a service that is performed by human beings on behalf of other human beings, there are bound to be warts, and complaints coming from all sides—patients, staff and administrators. For all its imperfections, I believe that it is the responsibility of those of us who respect those terms of reference to defend them, to see that they stand the test of time and endure.
Ministers who apply double standards in their dealings with the service and pledge to safeguard it and develop it and then use their authority to weaken and dismember it are neither allies of those who work in the service nor friends of those who are sick and need its care. None of us needs to have too long a memory to recall the commitment given by the Secretary of State to the nation during the election campaign. He pledged that spending plans for the Health Service would be subject to further consideration, and "upward review" was the phrase that he used. He said that it was out of the question that any downward review would take place. Those words meant nothing. The first massive manpower cuts in the history of the service were imposed within a few weeks of his taking office. His action was roundly criticised at that time by many people outside the House. It was described in a leading editorial as a rapid and cynical ditching of the spirit and detail of an election pledge and an appalling treatment of the National Health Service, and so it was.
In areas such as mine, where resources were already overstretched, the position became even worse. Constraints were placed on the local health authority, both in financial and manpower terms, which dramatically changed what had previously been achieved. Previously, those who had trained in a variety of techniques in the authority were offered jobs in the service. That is no longer possible. Staff who are finishing their training at public expense are jobless or are going into the private sector. In my area, radiographers are finishing training, but no jobs are available. Yet, at the same time, a consultant radiologist in the hospital rightly complains that the equipment that he needs for patient care, equipment that cost thousands of pounds, is lying unused because the staff on the basic grade of pay cannot be employed to operate it. That is nonsense.
The Minister tells me that the long delayed start of the community hospital in Sandwell might begin in four years' time. It has been so long delayed that local doctors who pioneered the project and know of its necessity to the community are on the point of retiring. Mine is an area in which the proportion of elderly people is far higher than the national average, the queue for surgery is lengthening and more than 6,000 in the catchment area are waiting for necessary operations. A community hospital would ease the pressure on bed spaces in other hospitals, needed by patients who must have the use of high technology equipment.
Although the Minister has given a glimmer of hope, he nevertheless has that famous caveat always put there by his Department, that the hospital project is still "under review." I wonder whether this is the upward review about which the Secretary of State told us in the June election campaign, or whether it is the downward review that came about after the election. I wonder whether the project, which conforms to all the priorities which the Government set for health care, will be further postponed.
I am deliberately restricting my remarks to the west midlands, to some extent because the Secretary of State


represents a part of it, as I do. It cannot have escaped his attention, as it has not escaped mine, that the region is becoming one with some of the longest hospital waiting lists for surgery. Nor can the flood of comment and concern have escaped his notice, coming as it does from senior people in the medical profession who are now compelled to speak out, as they never have done before, about the problems of long delays, the cancellation of treatment which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and the demoralisation that this is causing both to staff and patients.
The Secretary of State seemed to give the impression that because of the increased efficiency and various other measures that he had taken more people were being helped in the National Health Service. He cannot be ignorant of the fact of what has happened in his region. Consultants are now publicly expressing concern about patients who are on waiting lists and who are now suffering such deterioration in their condition that they have gone downhill too far to be helped. The Secretary of State must know that the consultant surgeon at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham branded the provision for cardiac sufferers as "the worst anywhere". He said:
The chance of dying is much higher on the waiting list than after the operation.
He went so far as to say that
as many as 18 operations were cancelled on the day of surgery because of lack of intensive care facilities.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has left the Chamber, but I understand that she has another commitment. People in her position who boast about patients getting better value for money from this Government should realise that people on waiting lists who are made ready for surgery one day and are turned away because there are no facilities do not believe that they are getting value for money. Recently it was made clear that we had reached a point at which, because of the chronic under-funding, the gap between what could be provided for patients because of advances in medical science and what is being provided is rapidly widening. The chairman of the British Medical Association made that point only this week.
I am not suggesting to the Secretary of State that the problems of health care in inner cities, about which many of us know, and the unequal distribution of resources has happened overnight. It has not. The problem has been with us for some time. What is a fact is that the problem is rapidly worsening, and we crucially need a major shift of national resources into the service. The imbalance has to be redressed in areas of unequal distribution, so that those who are further disadvantaged by decay and poor environment, and those who are dispossessed by industrial change, as we know they are, will at least receive the necessary social investment to compensate for the inadequacies of the environment in which they have to live.
For a time, the Government went some way towards recognising these problems. In the 1983 Tory election manifesto, on page 27, they singled out the midlands for special attention. They said that it was short of resources and pledged to make extra provision for it. That commitment is not worth the paper on which it was written. Some £8 million was taken from the midlands' budget. The increased facilities and much needed development have been halted. Staffing levels have been

reduced by more than 3,000. The chairman of the regional board came to see Labour Members because we could not get the precise figures from the Department. We ask him to give us the figures, and I have a breakdown of them. The unredeemed pledges of the Government rekindle Disraeli's description of his party as "an organised hypocrisy".
The Secretary of State cannot hope to squeeze the service harder in the interests of efficiency. He knows what the figures are, and he must know that, far from being a burden on public expenditure, it takes a smaller proportion of our national resources than do similar services in comparable countries.
The Health Service cannot be shackled to the purse strings of the Prime Minister and dismembered and dismantled. It is not the Government's property. It belongs to all of us, and although a Labour Government had a major hand in creating it, and I am enormously proud of that, it does not belong to any Government. It did not belong to that Government, it certainly does not belong to this Government and it will not belong to future Governments. It belongs to the people of Britain, and we have put down the motion to demonstrate that fact clearly.

Mr. David Atkinson: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned the Prime Minister's eye operation last year. Any Prime Minister, or Minister, Conservative or Labour, deserves the best possible health treatment, because of the job that he or she does. They are entitled to choose where they obtain that treatment, just as Labour Ministers have done in the past. No decent, fair-minded or honest person would disagree with that. The comments of the hon. Gentleman and the comments made last autumn by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who suggested that an account should be rendered for the cost of some NHS surgical instruments that were used during my right hon. Friend's operation, were petty, pathetic and prejudiced. I regret that they were said.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all that he and his Department did behind the scenes to ensure the commencement last week of the building of the long-awaited Bournemouth general hospital in Castle lane in my constituency. It has been awaited for more than 20 years. It was delayed by the cuts in the hospital building programme imposed by the Labour Government, and further delayed because of recent changes in design and hospital building policy. My constituents will heave a sigh of relief now that the first stage is under way for completion in 1987. By the time the entire 670-bed hospital is ready, no doubt one or more of our older hospitals will be closed. I hope that there will be no criticism from the Opposition when they are closed, because those hospitals will have outlived their usefulness and will have been replaced by modern ones.
The debate is about resources for the NHS. The word "crisis" has been overworked, since, within a year of its birth, Aneurin Bevan put a lid on NHS expenditure. The debate is also about demand, and we ignore at our peril the facts contained in the Green Paper on public expenditure, to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred, the trends to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred


—he also quoted the anxieties of the chairman of Wessex regional health authority, which were reported in a local newspaper under the heading,
Action Now on NHS or Collapse within 20 Years"—
and the warnings given at this week's conference of the British Medical Association.
In response to present demand, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors have done all the right things. He has more than maintained public expenditure on the NHS since 1979, which is no mean achievement during a world recession. He is achieving greater efficiency per pound spent on health care and is pursuing more. He is right to reorganise management and to introduce manpower monitoring. To be the largest employer in western Europe invites scrutiny of labour, especially when the number of employees in the NHS grew by about 487,000 between 1970 and 1980, which matched exactly the growth of the British population during that decade. We had one extra employee for each extra citizen born.
My right hon. Friend is right to ask health authorities to submit plans for contracting out non-medical services where real savings can be made, especially as hospitals in other countries make far greater use of private contractors. In France, Belgium and Germany the figure is 50 per cent.; in Denmark it is 60 per cent.; and in New Zealand and Socialist Sweden it is 70 per cent. In Britain we contract out only 2 per cent. of services. That is the measure of what can be achieved in this area.
However, the signs are that what my right hon. Friend is doing will not be enough to provide resources to satisfy the expected and predicted demand on the NHS. When that problem was put to the Think Tank two years ago, its recommendation to change to a service based on insurance funding was never published and was immediately shelved. But no responsible party should assume that a nationalised Health Service such as ours is or will ever be superior to any alternative system. We should not assume that it will match people's expectations or demands in the future. Indeed, more and more people—more than 4 million to date—are showing their dissatisfaction with their feet, by paying not once but twice for medical cover.
The Government should now look positively in the direction of a greatly enlarged private health service if their successors are to satisfy the future demand to which we have all been alerted. We should not be afraid to put that case to the British people, who are prepared to accept greater responsibility for their health needs and those of their families. That does not mean that we should go down the American road, where it seems that one is left untreated if one does not have a membership card or if they have run out of Medicaid funds for that year. We should encourage evolution towards a more balanced partnership based on a closer working relationship between both services, to avoid wasteful duplication of resources.
Several initiatives that should soon be taken by the Government and the private sector will help to determine the potential without committing either party to it. The private sector — the insurers and hospital groups —remains its own worst enemy. It seems completely incapable of getting its act together and presenting the Government with sensible recommendations for private sector development. A national council representing the five main components is long overdue. Of course, the

sector is far too small with 7,000 private hospital beds and 3,000 pay beds, and is insufficiently competitive in its choice of cover. The public must have a wide range of choice in price, so we should encourage more British, American and indeed European enterprises to become established here, just as we are capable of exporting our health services and hospital capability.
Many advantages could be gained by breaking down our personal income taxation so that taxpayers are more aware of how much they are paying towards their social security and the NHS. It is not generally understood that 85 per cent. of the cost of the NHS comes from general taxation and 11 per cent. from national insurance contributions. Surely it is not beyond the capability of our computers to separate income tax from a health tax and social security tax— [HON. MEMBERS: "What will that do for sick people?"] It will make all of us as taxpayers and consumers more aware of the lack of value for money for the taxes which we pay.
While I have reservations against all forms of tax relief and allowances, instead preferring lower general income tax, I believe that there is a strong and sensible case for providing tax relief for health insurance premiums for those aged 65 and over. That is the age of which most people find that their incomes fall; usually quite significantly, while at the same time they are faced with a rise in subscriptions. Understandably, many of them let their subscriptions lapse for economic reasons at the start of the very time of their lives when they are likely to need more medical cover. Consequently, the NHS picks up the bill. Surely it is better to encourage the maintenance of private cover for the rest of their lives at minimum loss to the Revenue by giving tax relief on their private medical insurance subscriptions than for the NHS and the state to take on the full cost of their care.
The NHS has done, and is doing, an extremely good job, but the demands made upon it now, and the demands that are expected, are and will be beyond the capacity of the NHS, and the gap between demand and resources will widen. We must now approach the private sector positively to make up the balance and to respond to the growing demand of our people to accept greater responsibility for themselves rather than to rely on the state.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: I shall be brief as many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. I can remember the 1920s and 1930s. I also remember that a national health service was opposed by previous Tory and Liberal Governments. It was introduced by a Labour Government who always fought for a health service paid for out of taxation.
The Government are butchering the health services, and by doing so are killing people. In spite of all their bleating about spending more, they continue to cut back on health services and are closing hospitals. That is what is happening in places such as Hackney where hospital closures have taken place. At present, patients and citizens are occupying St. Leonards hospital which the Government are attempting to close.
Yesterday I received a message from the doctor responsible for the drug unit at Hackney hospital telling me that no further drug cases could be taken on because of insufficient finance. Similarly, I have received letters from staff and patients from the neurological rehabilitation


unit asking me to protest against the threatened closure of this essential and important unit. All this is in spite of the bleating of the Minister for Health about what the Government are doing for the Health Service. We should judge them by their actions. The people of Hackney do so, and are dissatisfied because the area does not enjoy many of the health services.
I have concrete evidence of how the Government's actions are placing the nation's eyesight in danger. Like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you wear glasses, as does the Secretary of State for Social Services. The glasses that I am now wearing were bought today as a result of a handbill which has been distributed to many thousands of people.
It states:
Guaranteed superb quality reading glasses — £6·50 to £13·50. Why pay more? Victoria Market, 5 Wilton Road".
I went along and discovered that the stall was next door to a clairvoyant. I did not know whether to go to the clairvoyant first to get a prescription, but I went to the stall and was told, "Try these on for size." I did and read the card displaying various sizes of print. They did not do, so I tried another pair and they did not do. I then tried on another pair and asked, "What is happening?", and was told, "They are getting stronger each time." Eventually I purchased the ones that I am now wearing, and I can read with them.
The handbill, under the heading of "Your Eyesight", contains some dangerous information, which must be the responsibility of the Government. It states:
Reading difficulties which come with age, our consultant reports, are not a defect but a natural ageing process—very like greying hair…The eye's lens hardens with time and is no longer supple enough to focus on near objects. This generally affects both eyes equally and one needs only a pair of identical simple magnifying lenses"—
which these glasses are, but even though I can read with them I can see better when I take them off—
to allow for this and restore ease of reading. The slight difference between the two lenses"—
that applies to my glasses—
of many spectacles supplied by opticians are added only because there is no further inconvenience. The customer is often unable to tell the difference between a pair that includes them and a pair that does not.
These glasses do not fit properly and fall off when one bends down.
I went to Dollond and Aitchison, the opticians in Victoria street, and had my prescribed glasses and the new pair checked. The results show a clear difference between the glasses that I bought, with which I can read, and the spectacles that I had prescribed. Therefore, glasses that are sold in this way are far from satisfactory and could be dangerous to those who buy them.
Furthermore, poor people, such as those I represent, will be driven to these places to buy glasses. As in the 1930s, people will begin purchasing spectacles from second hand shops and off stalls, where they are even cheaper. The old and the poor, who cannot afford to go to the optician to get a proper pair of glasses, will be forced to purchase them elsewhere. It is time that the Government looked at the real problems of the Health Service instead of bleating about how much they are spending on it.

Mr. Mike Woodcock (Ellesmere Port and Neston): In response to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief. Like many hon. Members, I am concerned about the state of the NHS. However, I am less concerned about the

amount of cash that the Government give the NHS than I am about the management of the Health Service, the concern shown by the NHS for local opinion, waste in the Health Service, lack of health education in our schools, lack of stability caused by constant reorganisation and the level of management training in the NHS. If we showed more concern about these things, we would go a long way towards bridging the gap between what the NHS can do and what we would like it to do.
I am one of those fortunate people who has never had to spend a day of my life in hospital, but I have had cause to be grateful for the availability of casualty and minor injuries units. I know how important they are in an emergency, and appreciate the importance of people knowing when and where they are available.
There is such a unit in Ellesmere Port in ray constituency. It is small by casualty unit standards, but it treats 10,000 cases each year. For many years it has provided a reassuring, effective and acceptable service. It has provided exactly the service that should be provided and has been much appreciated locally.
The service is, and was, additionally important for three reasons. First, it is important because Ellesmere Port is an industrial town and provides 15 per cent. of all the jobs in Cheshire. Many cases treated at the unit are the result of industrial injuries. Secondly, the unit is important because there are 25 schools within a mile or so of it. They regularly use the facility. Thirdly, it is important because the town is in a depressed area with a high unemployment rate, a particularly high youth unemployment rate and a high proportion of elderly people, many of whom do not have the facilities to go to alternative units by private transport.
In spite of that, in October last year the district health authority proposed the closure of the unit on cost-saving grounds. Much concern was expressed locally and many representations were made to the district and regional health authorities. Many constituents wrote to me, including teachers, nurses, industrialists and family men and women. A petition containing 12,000 signatures was organised. The borough council strongly opposed the proposal and went as far as to consider the possibility of financing the unit itself. The community health council also opposed the proposal.
Nevertheless, the district health authority pressed ahead and after the consultation process the Minister confirmed that he will allow the closure. The case for closure was based on cost savings, but I think that the closure is likely to increase the cost of treatment. The authority says that the savings, based on staff costs, non-staff costs, medical supplies and overheads, will amount to £51,000 a year. That is £5 per patient treated.
One might think that that is a modest amount for the treatment of one person, but that calculation ignores the fact that patients will still have to be treated elsewhere and that costs will be incurred. It ignores the fact that no staff redundancies will take place, when staff costs total 75 per cent. of the £51,000. Even more important, the calculation ignores the extra costs that will have to be borne by the community. It ignores the costs of extra transport to the alternative facilities at the West Cheshire hospital. It is estimated that over £15,000 will have to be spent on bus fares alone for the additional journeys.
The calculation also ignores the extra time taken by patients and those who accompany them when travelling to the alternative facilities. It ignores the extra loss of


working time and disruption to production in factories. It also ignores the fact that some people, because of extra time or cost, may not even bother to present themselves for treatment.
I do not say that savings should not and cannot be made. The National Health Service is the nation's largest employer. It employs almost 1 million people. Since 1979 National Health Service expenditure has risen from £7·75 billion to £16 billion—that is 18 per cent. over the sum required to compensate for inflation. Between 1971 and 1981 about 200,000 extra staff were employed in the service.
In any organisation as vast as the NHS in which spending has risen to that extent, efficiency should be increased and savings made wherever possible. In the long term the best way to preserve and expand the National Health Service is to ensure that it provides an efficient service at reasonable cost. That necessitates constant review of practices and resources.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Basically, I agreed with the arguments about cost expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock). I was not impressed by the cost case put forward by the authority. It seemed to me that cost savings were being used as an excuse for a decision that should be based on service grounds. I have never approved of closure on cost-cutting grounds alone. In this case, on balance, I thought that a better service could be provided by the transfer. I think that using cost-cutting as the reason for the closure was a lazy way to present the case that my hon. Friend has effectively destroyed.

Mr. Woodcock: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. My point is that, although savings and increased efficiency are necessary, savings within the NHS should not be the result of imposing greater financial burdens on services outside the NHS. It is a false saving to eliminate cost-effective local services by increasing the cost to industry and to the public. Such closures are unnecessary. I suggest 10 areas that the NHS and the Government could consider to improve efficiency and so prevent such closures as that which is about to take place in my constituency.
First, the NHS should look at its own administrative tail and to the 100,000 or more administrators and 100,000 ancillary staff which it employs. Secondly, the NHS and the Government should make greater use of the opportunites to privatise ancillary services because of the cost reductions that could be so obtained.
Thirdly, the NHS should examine and learn from the management techniques and manpower planning and management training practices of some large employers in the private sector. Fourthly, it should recognise that voluntary help is important in the Health Service and do more to welcome it.
Fifthly, the NHS and the Government should now stabilise the organisational structure of the service because continual changes undermine morale and efficiency. One NHS administrator told me, "It seems that in the NHS constant change is here to stay." Recently I led a discussion with a group of senior Health Service staff which included the chairman of a health authority, the senior nursing officer, the health authority secretary,

treasurer, medical administrator and a senior surgeon. They were united in the view that the major need now is for a period of stability in long-term plans.
Sixthly, the National Health Service and the Government should together examine ways of utilising unemployed people to assist with care in the community. Seventhly, the Government should encourage private health care, if necessary by tax incentives, not to undermine the NHS but to reduce the burden on hard-pressed resources.
Eighthly, there should be a tighter audit on those who practise both inside and outside the Health Service. Ninthly, we should all recognise that the nation's health needs are social, mental and physical—probably in that order, and not in the reverse order, as much spending now assumes. Finally, we should pay more attention to health education, particularly in our schools. It is nonsense that many schools insist upon religious education but not compulsory health education. If we paid more attention to health education we should come closer to the health service that we require and move away from the present national disease service.
If the NHS and the Government concentrated on those 10 areas there would be less need to argue, as we have argued all afternoon, about the financial resources devoted to the NHS, and we should have a much more efficient and effective Health Service.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I take hon. Members' minds back to October 1982, when the Prime Minister, at the Tory party conference, said:
The NHS is safe with us.
Last October she said:
The NHS is safe only with us.
I do not apologise for repeating those oft-repeated words. A previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), had the words "at a stroke" hung firmly round his neck. We should never let the present Prime Minister forget the words:
The NHS is safe only with us
if for no other reason than her great belief in her divine right. Who knows, she might try to walk on water!
The Government's policies are driving us towards a two-tier Health Service—a private sector looking after the healthy and the wealthy, and a poorly financed and demoralised Health Service designed to look after the rest of us. In one short year since the Government took office, what have they done? They have cut the cash for health services in real terms, slashed staffing levels for the first time in the history of the NHS and forced local health authorities to privatise ancillary services. They have done all that they can to encourage the development of the private sector in health care.
In last year's election campaign the Secretary of State claimed that the Tories had increased spending on the NHS by 7·5 per cent. in real terms during the previous four years. He did not point out that, because of increasing demand, that figure was needed just to enable the service to stand still. Arthur Taylor, the chairman of the Newcastle area health authority, who was confirmed in office by the present Government, has said on television that an increase of 1·5 per cent. per year means simply that the service stands still.
The Prime Minister constantly bleats about being the daughter of a grocer. She talks about the need to run


services with the efficiency of a corner shop. The House of Commons Social Services Select Committee said in 1972 that the Government's use of the phrase "efficiency savings" had become a euphemism for expenditure cuts. That cannot be denied. Within a month of the general election, which saw the Tory arty promising to look after the Health Service, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut £140 million from the hospital and community health services budget. As a result, our Health Service is approaching chaos, because health authorities are faced with a 1 per cent. cut in budgets only four months into the financial year.
The Government's own calculations for growth by 1·2 per cent. were reduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to just over 0·2 per cent. In 1983–84, despite the growing demands, services have been cut by between 2 and 2·5 per cent. Because of this, hospitals in cities, towns and villages are under threat. Since May 1979, 160 hospitals have been fully or partly closed, with the loss of 8,000 beds, and the threat of closure is hanging over 35 community hospitals and 50 other hospitals in London. Family planning clinics have been axed and some 6,000 newborn babies are at risk each year because of the lack of special care units.
In the face of that situation, the Government claim that more nurses and doctors are working in the NHS than ever before. Good-oh. However, the Government do not brag about the record level of unemployment among nurses and doctors. Between 1979 and 1982, unemployment among qualified midwives and nurses more than doubled, from more than 4,000 to more than 9,000. In September 1982, when the Government conveniently stopped collecting evidence on unemployment within the NHS, nearly 1,500 doctors were unemployed. Yet there has never been greater demand for comprehensive health care. Even the British Kidney Patient Association states that 3,000 patients are dying each year because of lack of treatment. Perhaps one should allow for the fact that pressure groups tend to make extravagant claims, but even if we assumed that the association had overestimated the figure by 100 per cent., 1,500 patients could still be dying each year. That is a damnable state of affairs.
The Tory manifesto of June 1983 stated:
Conservatives reject Labour's contention that the State can and should do everything. We welcome the growth in private health insurance in recent years…We shall continue to encourage this valuable supplement to state care.
What is being reflected in present developments is the fact that private practice can survive only as a parasite on the NHS. Private health insurance does not cover childbirth or provide the care offered in our NHS for the very elderly. Private insurance does not cover provision for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped, which costs the NHS so much. The only services in which the private organisations such as BUPA are interested are the lucrative patient services. They do not care about the needs of the community. They care only about the needs of their bank managers.
Why should men and women who may have lived through two world wars, brought up families and contributed a great deal to the wealth of the country now be treated as unwanted commodities to be shunted off into some place that is financially convenient for Governments rather than socially and morally acceptable to the old people concerned and their families? When someone has spent his life in a certain town, what justification is there

for pushing him into a large hospital somewhere else when the facilities exist in his own community to enable him to live out his life contented and happy, with his own folks around him? Yet hospitals which offer geriatric care are to be closed because the Prime Minister is too tight-fisted to finance them. I hope that the Minister for Health will explain to the elderly who have given so much to this country why the Conservative Government have neither the time nor the money to look after them.
As more and more of our Health Service is privatised, more and more of our health provision will be centralised in the major cities. It is not profitable to run hospitals in rural areas, and unless the Government can make a profit out of everything—including the care of the sick and disabled — provisions which may have existed for decades will simply disappear. We must fight to save our Health Service. Although the Prime Minister's performances in recent times could make one doubt it, we still live in a democracy in which the Government do not have power to destroy without recourse to the electorate. That is why public campaigns are so important in educating families on the dangers of allowing our Health Service to bleed to death.
At some time, every one of us—or some member of our family—will need the facilities of a hospital or the services of a doctor. We must fight to regain and retain the principles of the NHS. It was supposed to be a service which would be free at the point of use and funded out of general taxation. We all need that facility, and we need to retain the NHS at a high level, as a comprehensive and universal service.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I hope that the fact that my speech will last only for three or four minutes will enable one more hon. Member—or even two more hon. Members—to take part in this interesting debate. I regret the fact that I missed the speech of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) because I was detained in Committee elsewhere. However, I heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), who made roughly the same points. The right hon. Gentleman said that waiting lists in north Staffordshire were excessively long. The hon. Lady said that waiting lists in the west midlands region were excessively long. We can all refer to individual constituency cases, and identify distortions in the waiting list pattern. However, I should like to suggest a practical solution to the hospital waiting list problem.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Euthanasia?

Mr. Heddle: That remark is not worthy of a gentleman who has spent some of his time in an intellectual environment.
Of the 700,000 people on hospital waiting lists, about 120,000 want orthopaedic surgery. One such person, a 78-year-old great-grandmother, came to my advice bureau in 1981 having been told by her orthopaedic surgeon in the west midlands region that she would have to wait more than 40 years to have her hip replaced. Her hip was causing her pain and might have caused her early death. The problem was the result of a road accident 12 years before. Because pain is not a criterion used by health authorities for a non-urgent case such as hers and because the demand


on the surgeons in that part of the west Midlands was such, she could not have her operation. For a 78-year-old, the prospect of a 40-year wait is unbelievable.
I wrote 360 letters to orthopaedic surgeons throughout the United Kingdom. I am happy to say that one, at Stracathro general hospital in Scotland, replied saying that he had only a six-month waiting list and that if she was prepared to travel to Scotland at her own expense to be examined and if he deemed that her case was urgent and if her doctor was prepared to allow her to travel back to Scotland for the operation, he was prepared to put her on his waiting list.
Mrs. Caroline Pulcella had her operation within six months and now, at the age of 80, she can look forward to at least another 20 years of active life. If an ordinary overworked hon. Member writing 360 letters can identify a vacancy on a surgeon's list somewhere in the country, I believe that a computer and a computer bed bank could do it in a matter of seconds. My right hon. and learned Friend will of course tell me that I am citing an exceptional rather than a general case. I entirely accept that, but the previous Labour Government set up, under Professor Duthie, an inquiry into the problem of hospital waiting lists. He reported to the Department early in the previous Conservative Government's term of office. In response to that report, the Minister said:
I particularly welcome the emphasis the report places on the need for collaboration between doctors, other professional and management teams, in evaluating the efficiency of their existing services, and in studying how they may be improved within the resources available to them. In my view, the approach proposed by the working party should be studied also by those in other surgical specialities.
The time has now come for the Department to announce the pilot scheme to see whether a computer bed bank which links hospital waiting lists with surgeons' operating lists is possible and to see whether patients in genuine need can travel from one part of the country to another to have their pain relieved.
Today's debate is not about the district health service or the regional health service but about the National Health Service. Everyone, whether living in England, Wales, Scotland or even the EEC, has an equal right to the facilities and access to the facilities which the NHS offers. A computer bed bank, if only initially on a regional basis, might provide a solution to the problem of hospital waiting lists.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) said, as he gave us something other than the catalogue of approbation that we have heard from most Conservative Members. Today's debate, which is supposed to demonstrate our solidarity on the 36th anniversary of the foundation of the NHS, has not taken the debate about where the NHS should go much further forward. The knockabout across the House has demonstrated the accuracy of the alliance amendment.
There can be no doubt that the NHS needs more resources. There always has been and always will be such a need. It is obvious wherever we go. I am regularly assailed by constituents who tell distressing stories of long and painful delays for treatment. Whenever new treatments or techniques become available, they are

immediately assumed to be available to everyone, whatever the cost. In that respect I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who honestly drew attention to the problem that expectation will always outrun resources.
A debate on the NHS and which Government put more resources into it which failed to recognise the fundamental problems of accountability and the legitimacy of decisions on health provision and financial control does not do much to help the marvellous service to which many hon. Members have paid tribute. As the Secretary of State showed, we judge how well a Government are looking after the NHS by the amount of money that is spent on treatment and how many patients are treated.
In one way, that is entirely the wrong end of the telescope, as success might better be measured by reductions in the amount spent on the curative service. It is odd that we tend not to consider whether the nation is healthier. It has constantly been said that the prime aim of the NHS is preventive. Beveridge said that, as did the Merrison Royal Commission, and yet today we still spend only 7p on health education for every £1 that is spent on curative medicine.
It is significant that it is the women's movement which is leading the field in changing our perception of health care. It is significant that the Well Woman clinic, for example, is drawing attention to a different way of looking at the type of service which we need and which might be possible in future. In 1983, more than 2,000 young women died of cervical cancer. The death rate from that complaint has risen from 11 per cent. in 1969 to 30 per cent. in 1980. That is not evidence of our becoming a healthier nation. However, the recommendations sent out by the Department suggest that tests be made only every five years and general practitioners are paid only for tests on women over 35. The health authority in Cornwall, which ignores those guidelines, has found that deaths from cervical cancer in its area have fallen by 60 per cent. since 1969. Such health care is not getting the attention that it deserves.
Because the subject is highly emotive, and because the needs of the Health Service are infinite, it is an easy subject for any party to launch an attack from the Opposition Front Bench. Following his period as Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wrote honestly and shrewdly:
The separation of the power to tax from the power to spend ensures that health authorities have no incentive whatever to make economies, or even to extol the successes and virtues of their facilities. Just the opposite.
He made an interesting comment when he added:
The contrast between the nationalised and local health services is not explained solely by the fact that the local elected representatives share the responsibility. It extends far beyond the politicians and goes right through all who provide and use the services. One does not find the professions in the local health services embattled against local government as the professions in the National Health Service are embattled against the central Government.
The problem of raising the finance for the proper type of health services that we need lies in the fact that the RHA and DHA members have no electors to whom to answer. They have no decision to make on what their areas can afford and they have no public forum to which to report. Rudolf Klein, in his book "Politics of the NHS", described
the uncomfortable shifts in management style and structure in a vain attempt to control service.
He repeatedly comments that


the local option has never been tried.
My hon. Friends and I believe that it is about time that it was tried.
The only other point on which time permits me to comment is the question of clinical freedom. Nye Bevan in 1947 gave the assurance that it was "a basic principle" that there should be no interference with the clinical freedom of any doctor. I am concerned that there is an understandable deference on the part of lay people and politicians towards clinicians which is increasingly detrimental to broader health care.
There is a constraint on clinical freedom, and that constraint is the waiting list. Rather than have what is an unspoken and negative constraint, we need to look at legitimate ways of balancing the positive benefits of such freedom with the damaging effects elsewhere. A start could be made by developing the medical audit. What evidence there is for this concept goes back to the turn of the century in America and back to the 1930s in Britain. People examined the quality of service and the results of certain kinds of treatment and drew conclusions from that. That work has not been acted on and we have not developed the medical audit. As a result, we have the way in which clinical freedom motors at expenditure without necessarily producing results.
The NHS deserves better treatment than it has received from the Front Benches today. There is a crisis and a huge problem, and it does no good to pretend that it can be solved by centralised management or by pumping more and more cash into the existing service. We face a very difficult prospect and it is about time that we tackled it.

Mr. John Maples: I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road which he has been exploring, because I wish to confine my remarks to the Griffiths report.
We can probably all agree that our objective is to see that the NHS delivers the best possible health care for the money available. That involves the most effective use of the resources that are available to the service.
There is some confusion between input and output. People boast about the amount of staff or money that they would devote to the NHS, but those are inputs. The outputs are represented by the quality of health care. The relationship between them depends on how the money and staff are used, and the processes by which those decisions are arrived at are what management is all about.
The need for better management in that respect in the NHS is clear. A telling passage about it appeared in the Griffiths report, on page 10:
The NHS does not have the profit motive, but it is, of course, enormously concerned with control of expenditure. Surprisingly, however, it still lacks any real continuous evaluation of its performance against criteria such as those set out…Rarely are precise management objectives set; there is little measurement of health output; clinical evaluation of particular practices is by no means common and economic evaluation of those practices extremely rare.
I should have thought that that was a telling and fundamental criticism of the way in which necessarily scarce resources are managed and that it was an almost overwhelming argument for the type of management system which the Griffiths report proposed.
I suspect that the fear which people seem to have of the implementation of a general management system has to do

with fearing — I believe wrongly — that the style of management would be dictatorial and that professional work would be controlled by non-professionals with an eye only to cost. No large service organisation, particularly one which is delivering a public service such as health care, could function in that way.
Management plans must be agreed by most of the people involved in working with them, or they will not work. While everybody must be involved in the decision-making process, management is about making sure that there is clear individual responsibility for implementing the decisions which are taken.
It was also clearly the intention of the Griffiths report that clinicians should be involved in those procedures, for the report said that it was essential to
involve the clinicians more closely in the management process, consistent with clinical freedom for clinical practice. Clinicians must participate fully in decisions about priorities in the use of resources.
Thus, it is not the intention to involve them less in the process, but to involve them more than is the case at present, and if it is on that ground that the fear of the change proposed by the Griffiths report is founded, I hope that that fear will not be borne out. I am sure that it will not, and perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will say how the Labour party views the proposals in the Griffiths report. If he does not agree with them, perhaps he will tell us how he would propose to deal with management problems in the Health Service.
We are all aware that staff costs account for much of the budget of the NHS. The South East Thames regional health authority is responsible for the area in which my constituency lies. During 1978–83, when enormous cuts are supposed to have taken place, it increased its work force by nearly 2,000, from 64,500 to 66,500. I do not resent that, for I do not suggest that manpower policy should be directed only to getting rid of employees. It should be directed to ensuring that employees are used in the most effective way to deliver health care to patients. If someone is employed by the Health Service, let us ensure that that is what he does. Let us ensure that Health Service employees are utilised properly.
Several hon. Members have referred to unit costs, especially to the performance indicators that are published by the Department. The indicators tell an interesting story. I shall quote some telling comparative figures for the South East Thames regional health authority and the Oxford regional health authority. For example, the South East Thames authority employs 441 ancillary workers per 100,000 patients treated, against 278 in Oxfordshire. On the same basis, the South East Thames authority employs 250 clerks and administrators, against 203 in Oxfordshire. The Thames authority employs 61 management staff, as against 44 in Oxfordshire. There may be good reasons for the massive disparities, but they cry out for management attention.
Some comparisons are even more telling. The cost of preparing 100 items of laundry can vary from £4·50 to £18. That is a huge disparity. Ambulance trips can cost between £7 and £17 depending on the local authority involved. The cost of a maternity admission can vary between £215 and £690. These are pieces of evidence to which any management should want to address itself to ascertain whether more efficient systems are available to allow it to free resources on overheads to deliver more patient care.
Another area to which new management might address itself is the Health Service Supply Council. At the end of last year, the Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention in one of his reports to the council, which had been instituted to try to get health authorities to co-ordinate their purchasing to save money. He reported:
My staff were unable to establish from their selective inquiries that HSSC activities since 1981 had resulted in any increase in the use of co-ordinated contracts by health authorities in England.
That is a telling criticism of what was an extremely good idea. Such co-ordination would save money and allow it to be deployed on patient care.
A third area to which a new management system might address itself is the choice of implementation of objectives, which so often goes by default or goes because a part of the Health Service has a momentum of its own or because consultants choose to do one thing rather than another. Should we perform less exotic and expensive operations and direct ourselves to humbler and cheaper ones? The queues for hip replacements and the treating of varicose veins and hernias could be reduced. It may not be possible to remove queues in the Health Service altogether, but it would be possible to remove some of them. Consultants often choose to do an exotic or interesting operation because it interests them rather than six or seven hip replacements. These are choices that lie with the Health Service, but they are often made by default rather than decision. Is some Health Service surgery too expensive? One heart transplant probably costs as much as 15 hip replacements.
There has been some well-documented criticism recently of hospitals purchasing high technology equipment sometimes because another hospital down the road has the same piece of equipment. It seems that this happens because a hospital will say, "They have it, so why should we not have it too?" Very often there is no cost-benefit analysis. These are the sort of decisions taken by the management of the Health Service, with everyone involved discussing them, but they should be real management decisions. Decisions should not be allowed to go by default merely because that is how the system has developed or because an especially powerful consultant says that he wants to do something in a certain way.
This leads to clinical practice, an area in which the chairman of the district health authority in my constituency says enormous savings lie. According to him and many others, consultants often do not know the costs of the different treatments which they can prescribe. If they knew the costs, they would make their decisions in that light. It is not that they would necessarily choose the cheaper treatment; they must be free to choose whichever they feel is most appropriate. But if one treatment costs 10 times as much as another — as it does, for example, in the difference in cost between human and pig insulin for the treatment of diabetes — that is a factor that the consultant should bear in mind when deciding which to prescribe.
Doctors are often not aware of the costs. They are not involved in the decision-making processes that lead to the allocation of resources and the statement of objectives. If they made decisions in the light of the costs, resources would be used more effectively. The process in which consultants are involved in evaluation will show great

benefits. Doctors will then realise the cost of the different choices available to them and the trade-off between them. There can be trade-offs while the total resources of the NHS are limited.
There is a clear need for better management in the NHS. The proposals in the Griffiths report will lead to that, and I look forward to their implementation. It will improve decision making and ensure proper evaluation of choices and proper allocation of resources to agreed objectives, so that plans can not only be made but can be implemented and monitored. Above all, it will lead to better health care for the community.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) in talking about the Griffiths report. If he had deigned to grace the Chamber with his presence a few Fridays ago, he could have taken part with other hon. Members in the six or seven-hour debate on the report.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I begin on a personal note. Members of other parties may not understand, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will when I say that I count it a great privilege to reply to the debate on the anniversary of the founding of the NHS—on behalf of the Labour party that founded it and against the Conservative party that sought to strangle it at birth.
In July 1948, although I was only a child, I can remember how my parents—both Labour party members—were buoyed up with hope and pleasure when the NHS came into being. They, and thousands like them, had, in those familiar words on Labour movement banners, worked to educate, agitate and organise to achieve the establishment of a Health Service. It was the outcome of years of struggle by millions of ordinary people against the pain, suffering, inequality and impoverishment that had gone before. The benefits of that for working-class people were movingly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) in his contribution to the debate.
The Labour party manifesto of 1945 made a simple promise on health. It said:
The best health services should be available to all. Money must no longer be a passport to the best treatment.
On those unimpeachable principles, the NHS was founded. It was, and it remains — despite all the Government's efforts to undermine it—the cheapest and most efficient system of health care in the developed world. But it is now under threat, not only in practice but in principle. The Right-wing obsessives who run the Conservative party challenge its continued existence. They claim that market place medicine can do the job better. They are arguing not only about practicalities—they are saying that individualism and greed are a sound basis on which to organise society. We know that they are wrong.
Our view of the world conflicts with theirs, and nowhere is the distinction clearer than over the future of our nation's health. That is why there is such a fundamental division between the Labour party and the Government on the issue. We believe that people should obtain treatment when they are ill because they are ill—the Government do not believe that; we believe that the worse off should have priority—the Government do not; we believe that the NHS needs more money — the Government do not.
Apparently, faced with that fundamental division of belief between the Labour and Tory parties, all that the SDP-Liberal alliance can say is that there is a sterile current debate about the future of the NHS. It simply does not understand—perhaps the Tories do not understand either—that, when there are fundamental decisions to be made, one must come down on one side or the other. My impression is that if their intellectual forebears had been around in the United States at the time Abraham Lincoln said
'A house divided against itself cannot stand'";
we cannot be
half slave and half free
the SDP-Liberal alliance would have said, "Oh yes, we can."
We live in a society that is steeped in inequalities—not minor matters of how many colour televisions or videos there are but fundamental inequalities. It is still the case that manual workers are usually worse off, live in worse housing, work in worse conditions and get less pay. They are more likely to be unemployed, to be ill more often and to die sooner. There can be no greater inequality in life than an early death. Chronic sickness is twice as likely for an unskilled man and three times as likely for an unskilled woman as for a professional. We in the Labour party are saying that we want all our people to live as long as the well off and for their lives to be as healthy. Until that has been achieved, our society will be unjust and unequal. It will be a hard, long struggle to achieve that aim, but we believe that the National Health Service, true to its original principles, has a vital role to play in achieving that aim.
What do the Government propose instead?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry, I shall not give way.
Do the Government propose running down the NHS, starving it of money, decrying its efficiency, abusing its dedicated staff, constantly subjecting them to reorganisation and privatisation, and promoting private medicine instead? Many parts of our country are now badly served — not just deprived inner-city areas, but many rural areas where the collapse of public transport and other services makes getting proper health care difficult for many. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) pointed out, preventive work such as screening for cervical and breast cancer is being reduced and medical research is being cut back. It is not just those measures that are damaging the nation's health—3 million people cannot afford to heat the living areas of their homes, 6 million people lack some essential clothing, 5·5 million people cannot afford all the food that they need and the proportion of children getting school meals has decreased from two thirds to under one half during this Government's term of office. All those things damage our nation's health.
We need to spend more on the NHS. We need to improve our hospitals, to staff them properly and to restore the confidence of people working in the Health Service; but we need to go much further. We need to make our health system more responsive to individuals' needs, including the special needs of women and the ethnic minorities, because early and sympathetic treatment is good for patients and costs less than later drastic remedies. We need more and better-directed efforts put into health

education. Even that will not be enough. Much ill health springs from poor housing, bad working conditions, inadequate diet and, above all, too much stress and strain. Yet the Government's general policies worsen working conditions. The Government care little about the environment, and less about the housing needs of poorer people. Above all, their policy of competition at all costs and of throwing 4 million people on the dole and filling those in work with fear of the dole is causing stress and strain such as we hoped had been banished from the end of the second world war.
The Government's priorities for spending are wrong—more money for the army and police than for nurses and health workers, more money on the dole queue while hospital beds lie empty and waiting lists stretch years ahead, more money on status symbol weapons such as Trident, and less on research into cot deaths.
The Prime Minister claims a mandate for all this. She wants us to go back to having flag days to raise money for our hospitals. If she is so confident that her priorities command the people's support, I offer her this challenge: try a few flag days to pay for Trident and give the Health Service the funds that it needs.
Because the Government know that the Health Service is so successful and popular, they pretend to look after it, but they are like that guyed version of the Hippocratic oath:
Thou shalt not kill but need not strive officiously to keep alive.
No one could accuse the Government of striving officiously in that respect.
The Secretary of State spends most of his time in public fiddling the figures and making speeches claiming that all is well with the NHS. He did it again today. When I challenged him, I had not the figures readily to hand. But I can tell the House now that even the last Labour Government — many of whose actions on health I criticised before I came to the House and whose capital spending on hospitals the right hon. Gentleman abuses and despises—spent £654 million a year on average during their five years in office and that the present Government have not yet reached an average for their five years of £600 million a year.

Mr. Fowler: rose

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Dobson: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Dobson: I am merely using figures that the Minister gave me in answer to a parliamentary question on 4 November. In private the Secretary of State connives at the destruction of the Health Service. He claims in public that the Health Service is getting more resources than it is. However, Government spending on the Health Service has not kept up with the combined effects of inflation, the higher costs of medical technology and the needs of an aging population.

Mr. Maples: rose—

Mr. Dobson: No. I shall not give way.

Mr. Maples: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member will not give way to the Secretary of State, clearly he will not give way to a Back Bencher.

Mr. Dobson: Without the increased income from prescription charges, the financing of the Health Service would be quite disastrous. Everyone but the Government knows the truth and by "everyone" I mean not just the Labour party and the trade unions but the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the junior hospital doctors. All say that there are cuts and that the cuts are doing damage to patient care. Can it be that we are all out of step except little Norman?
When people ask what is the truth about the Government's claim to be spending more, I advise them to look around, to read their local papers, to watch local television and to listen to local radio. They should trust the evidence of their own eyes and ears. All over the country hospitals are closing, wards are closing and improved services are being postponed, and the Government's response is just a blather of statistics.
The most distinguished politician to come from my constituency was Benjamin Disraeli, and we all know that he said there are
lies, damned lies and statistics.
He said that before the Secretary of State was born. He also described the Tory party as "an organised hypocrisy", and so it is.
The Government's alternative to a well funded Health Service is to promote private medicine. They know that every time that they damage the Health Service they help their friends in the private sector and that, every time they promote the private sector, they damage the Health Service. No one is more guilty of this than the Prime Minister. Honeyed words about the Health Service put together by her public relations advisers for slick delivery at Tory party conferences are one thing. Deeds are another. She claims to lead by example. Perhaps she does. But she should ponder the words of her favourite poet, Rudyard Kipling:

"Ah! What avails the classic bent
And what the cultured word,
Against the undoctored incident
That actually occurred?"
Let me remind the House what actually occurred. The right hon. Lady has had two operations since becoming Prime Minister. In 1982 she had her varicose veins seen to at the Fitzroy Nuffield hospital. That was just plain, old-fashioned queue jumping; paying to get better treatment. However, the Prime Minister's next operation the following year was something different. She had a detached retina and it needed to be put right. There is no queue for detached retina treatment. The NHS can provide it. But what did the Prime Minister do? She appeared on television and said, "We chose a quiet little hospital near Windsor." She gave the impression that the NHS and all its staff were not good enough for her. Only the private Princess Christian hospital was good enough. What she did not say on television was that the equipment for the operation had to be borrowed from the King Edward VII NHS hospital down the road. Contrary to the impression that she deliberately created, only the NHS had the tools for the job. The private hospital could not cope.
What prospects for our country's health does private medicine, this Tory alternative, offer? Does it concentrate resources on patients and areas most in need? It does not; quite the reverse. Despite all the misleading advertisements by BUPA, its claim to classlessness has been rumbled. The general household survey shows that 23 per cent. of professionals and 19 per cent. of employers and managers have private medical insurance, compared with just 2 per cent. of semi-skilled and unskilled workers.
The Government's policy is to shift health resources from what they call the prosperous south-east to other areas, but most existing private hospitals and the new ones have been and are being built in that very area. There is precious little private hospital building in the areas that the Government say need more hospital beds. Why? Because there is no money to be made. Private hospitals seek out not sick people, but quick profits.
There is also the myth that private medicine supplements the NHS. To be fair to the Tories, not just they are involved. The Social Democratic party and the Liberals are at it too, in the form of Lord Wigoder, the Liberal peer who chairs BUPA. He said that NHS patients benefit because users of private medicine contribute tax and national insurance to the NHS while
for the most part seeking nothing in return.
Poor man—being a Liberal, he does not know the facts. For a start, BUPA does not usually cover general practitioner visits, and 90 per cent. of everyone's contact with doctoring is through general practitioners. However, even more revealing is the fact that the general household survey shows that, for those with private medical insurance, more than half of their inpatient stays in hospital and four fifths of their outpatient attendances are made under the NHS. Those are official Government figures.
As one of my hon. Friends said, private hospitals are parasites living off the NHS. In their unguarded moments, they admit it themselves. The Private Patients Plan, BUPA's greatest rival, drew up a feasibility study for a private hospital to be built on NHS land next to University College hospital in my constituency. The glossy brochure for potential investors stated:
The private sector would gain a high-quality, new, private hospital with the back-up availability of the full resources of a major teaching hospital. For a private hospital, the availability of sophisticated supporting services and skilled staff within University College Hospital would provide a range and quality of services which are not generally available in private hospitals and which probably could not be provided by other means.
In other words, if the patients got really sick, they would be able to rely on the NHS.
Following that example, United Medical Enterprises had a plan for a dozen private hospitals, each to
be developed in close proximity to a major teaching hospital.
We all know why. Private hospitals also rely heavily on the NHS to provide pathology and other services. They must do so because they are so ill equipped. In 43 per cent. of them there is no radiology department, and in 70 per cent. no pathology laboratory. To promote private medicine the Government have given tax handouts to hospital companies, including American ones, and have changed consultants' NHS contracts to encourage them to moonlight in private hospitals. Most consultants do their NHS jobs, but no less a person than Oliver Rowell of Nuffield hospital publicly admitted that the present arrangements cause
some detriment to the NHS".


Jim Barker from American Medical International said:
a lot—or a significant number—of consultants abuse their NHS contracts.
Almost all the skilled staff in private hospitals were trained in the NHS at public expense. It costs taxpayers £100,000 to train a doctor and £9,000 to train a nurse. That is yet another massive subsidy to the so-called independent sector. All over the country from St. Albans to Blackpool NHS hospital services are being damaged by the loss of trained nurses to private hospitals nearby.
I have another objection to the Tory alternative to the NHS. On top of its incapacity and parasitism, it would introduce American values and practices to the detriment of patients and staff. Recently I received a letter from the United States which, as Tory Members will agree, describes the position more eloquently than I could. It states:
I was born, brought up, and trained as a State Registered Nurse in Southampton. I now live and work in the United States, although I am still a British citizen. I have worked as a Registered Nurse in Maryland and am now working in Tucson, Arizona; I hold licences in both states. Nursing in America is hard, high-stress, and very frightening. There is so much paperwork, so much 'litigation phobia' and so much emphasis on the abstract that it is hard to find time for the patients…I would do anything to prevent such a situation happening in England.
So would anyone with sense.
We face a stark choice about the future for the Health Service. The Government offer a two-tier system an accelerating rundown of the NHS to provide poor-law medicine for many and the development of highly subsidised, highly suspect private medicine for the healthier and better-off. The alternative is to return to the basic principles of the NHS, and to find sufficient resources to give health workers the tools with which to do their jobs. That must be accompanied by a new attitude to health care—a commitment to give full priority to the health implications of all that we do as a country, and to raising everybody's prospects to the level of the best.
The trouble with the Tories is that they know that they are on the run. They know that the Opposition's analysis of the present and vision for the future has the support of the majority of British people. Labour Members are proud of the NHS, and British people cherish it to the same extent that hardline Tory Members fear and hate it. They hate it because it is based on Socialist principles, is popular and has blown a great hole in the idea that market forces are the answer to the world's problems. They fear it because its success and popularity demonstrates the effectiveness of Socialism in action. They are scared that people will think that if Socialist principles work in the Health Service they should be applied across the board.
The Opposition are proud of what our party established on 5 July 1948. In adversity — we have had our bad times, and Tory Members will meet adversity ere long — we take heart from the commitment of those who struggled for years to give the great Nye Bevan the opportunity to set up the NHS. We take heart from the growing recognition of the British people that the Tories must not be allowed to destroy their Health Service. We are confident that it will survive even the most vicious attacks. We promise that the next Labour Government will restore a reinvigorated National Health Service to its right place in this country's priorities and, again, set an example to the world. We shall not rest until that job is done.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): It is my recollection that when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) goes around the country delivering his speeches he usually rolls into town accompanied by the Labour party's campaigning ambulance. After hearing his performance over the past 25 minutes, I believe that the old van is beginning to run out of steam. I believe that that is true of the campaign being mounted on the National Health Service. The Labour party has, I will concede, had a pretty good run with its campaign about NHS cuts with the general public over the past 12 months, but the campaign is losing credibility, and the attempt to revive it this evening also lacks credibility.
The Opposition made a fundamental mistake at the election, which can be made in politics, as it can be made in other walks of life. They cried wolf. They accused us of wishing to dismantle the National Health Service; they said that it was near to destruction; they said that they were saving the NHS from people who wanted to turn us into Americanised recipients of private practice. That has proved to be nonsense, and the attempt to sustain it is becoming sillier by the moment, and it has never been sillier than in the Front Bench speeches that we have heard today.
I shall even agree with the alliance on half a point—the public are becoming more and more irritated with the sterile debate where one side howls "Cuts" about every problem in the Health Service, while we describe the growth in services and the attempt that we are making to develop services in the face of the demand. That is repeated each time a member of the Opposition Front Bench, and most of their Back Benchers, attempt to turn the figures on their heads and produce statistics which the public merely find a nuisance in the way of their understanding.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose—

Mr. Clarke: If the Opposition Front Bench will not give way to the Secretary of State, I do not see why I should give way to the Opposition in the first 30 seconds of my speech.
I was going to try to reply to the figures which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave. We are familiar with them. He made his usual attempt to try to demonstrate that an 18 per cent. real increase in expenditure is a cut if one makes all kinds of notional calculations. He criticises us for boasting that we have employed more doctors since we came into power—there are 6,519 more doctors. He was worried by our claiming that there are more nurses—there are 46,100 more nurses since we came into power. That is a 13 per cent. increase. I was going to deal with his attempt to try to turn all those matters into a rundown, a cut and a despairing cry on behalf of the Health Service, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras got up—

Mr. Tony Favell: No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend heard the hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Meacher) refer to a petition which was raised in and around my constituency. There is no finer place for a petition to be raised, because it is the best-attended shopping centre in the north-west. Since then I have had a word with the chairman of the district health authority, and my right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to


hear that over the past three or four years there has been no reduction in services in Stockport, nor did the chairman foresee any reduction in services.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounded rather more like a speech than an intervention.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Oldham, West is no more reliable on the problems of Stockport than he is on the problems of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras produced yet another variant of the figure of which he is proud, after an accusation that we were fiddling the figures. He was challenged, but he stood there refusing to retreat. He has the figures of the average capital spending in the period of the Labour Government compared with the figures for the period of our Government. He knows what is wrong with that comparison, which is why he would not give way. The Labour party took over a high capital programme and reduced it by 35 per cent. We took over a low capital programme and we have increased it.

Mr. Dobson: No.

Mr. Clarke: Oh yes, we have. The hon. Gentleman takes an average—

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall worry the hon. Gentleman by giving way in a moment. He is reckless to seek to intervene. He is taking an average from a pattern of a peak, a trough and a rise again, and he reckons that the average spend during the Labour period of government was higher than the average during ours.
However, the hon. Gentleman is taking credit for the higher spending which the Labour Government inherited from the Conservative Government to get this higher average, and he is lumbering us with the problems of the low spend that we inherited, which brought our average down. I have the figures. At constant 1982 prices, the period of 1974–75 to 1979–80 shows an average of £652·5 million. In the period 1979–80 to 1984–85, the average is £652 million. On that totally fraudulent average, the hon. Gentleman can show, in a £652 million average, a £500,000 advantage to his Government, based on the fact that they inherited a big capital programme from us and we have not managed to get the programme up high enough now to get the £500,000 difference.

Mr. Dobson: Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not have a gang getting the figures for me. All that I can do is rely on the parliamentary answer given on 4 November by the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Minister said that when the Labour Government took office they immediately reduced the Tory level of spending. That is not true. The figures are these. The level of spending started at £711 million, which rose to £733 million, and went down to £714 million. There were then the cuts and the figure went down to £552 million, then it went back up again to £562 million and then, under this Government, it went down to £514 million. It then crept back up to £558 million and then to £650 million, then to £655 million and now, according to the answer that I received from the Library this evening, it has gone back down to £625 million.

Mr. Clarke: I have never accused the Labour Government of immediately cutting capital spending, because they inherited a building and construction programme. They did not come in and immediately stop the benefits of what was under construction, so the spending for the first year or two was what they had inherited from the projects in the pipeline, which had been started by the previous Government. Our first year or two spending was what we had inherited from the previous Labour Government. When the crash came, they made a 35 per cent. cut, which set back the building of the new hospitals to which reference has been made. We are putting the capital spending up and bringing on the new hospitals again.
There is an important figure about closures and openings. We have closed the old and opened the new. People correctly say that we have closed more old hospitals than we have opened new ones. That is because we have opened big new ones and closed small old ones. There is another figure. Between May 1979 and March 1984 we authorised closures representing 11,900 beds. Since we have been in office, in the same period, 34 new major schemes have opened, with 11,000 new beds. A whole lot of smaller schemes are providing yet more beds. My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) are able to point their constituents in the direction of hospitals which were delayed by Labour Governments and inherited by us and opened. Only this afternoon the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital was formally opened for inpatients. The new hospitals are coming through the pipeline steadily and will improve patient care.
We should not be arguing about the phoney figures that pour out of Transport house and the research departments of trade unions. We should measure the Health Service in the terms that matter to the public. They include how many patients are being treated, what is happening to waiting lists, what should be done about those awaiting treatment and where we are going. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave objective, dispassionate figures which were unchallenged. I shall not repeat those figures, which can be studied on the record. They show that more patients are being treated, there are more inpatients and outpatients, that waiting lists became shorter when we took office and are decreasing further after the hiccup of the strike, and that we are not just providing extra money—we have, of course, spent more money on the service—but are providing a substantially better service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) so eloquently said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said in an extremely clear speech which explained the point about value for money—it was immediately followed by a cheap remark from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who went on to give knockabout, spartist rubbish with his fiddled figures in the middle—our efforts to get better value for money come on top of extra spending. We should try to get more value for money to deliver more patient care and to deal sensibly and constructively with the needs which we know exist.
The most criticised area of higher efficiency, because the day has been organised outside the House by the trade unions, is the tendering process which we are introducing to try to reduce the support costs of the NHS to a more


reasonable level so that we can release more money for patient care. The most amazing attack upon that operation was conducted earlier today, including an attack on several of my hon. Friends who are supposed to have private interests. No hon. Member on either side of the House has approached me or my colleagues on this subject without declaring an interest. No improper approach has been made. I have no evidence that any right hon. or hon. Member has behaved improperly, although that was the innuendo running through much of what was said.
A source of such innuendo was The Guardian, which tried to attack my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State because he had had lunch with representatives of a catering association. My hon. Friend also had tea with the trade unions, and he will have dinner with the NHS catering and laundry managers. I have met the NHS catering managers. Ministers constantly meet anyone with a legitimate interest in their subject, and it is farcical to try to trivialise the attack on our policy in that way. Are the Opposition claiming, or is it their answer to the savings that have been made, that we are embarking on the exercise because of some shareholdings that may or may not be held by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) or for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)? We shall make substantial savings that will boost patient care and we shall continue to expand services in the way that we have done.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Secretary of State and Conservative Members said much about savings and efficiency, but I wish to be clear what they mean by that. A few weeks ago, I visited Stanley Ryhood hospital, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison). I visited an all-male ward of aged people. These men had fought in two world wars, had worked hard all their lives, and had had psychiatric breakdowns, and their one pleasure in life was one day a year out with the staff. For the other 364 days they sat inside four walls. They were all looking forward to the following week, but when I went back that following week it had been decided that because of cuts and savings only half of those men could go on that one day outing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Is that the type of saving to which the Minister is referring?

Mr. Clarke: I have visited the hospitals in Wakefield. I have met the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) and the chairman of the Wakefield health authority. Wakefield is suffering, not from cuts of any kind, but from a combination of demands. In particular, we are discussing ways of improving geriatric provision in Wakefield and are trying to sort out an effective policy.
One way of improving services in Wakefield and elsewhere is to cut out unnecessary costs and to make sure that we provide basic support services at a competitive rate. At present, £1 billion is spent on catering, cleaning and laundry support services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and others have said, the gap between the costs in the Health Service and outside makes it obvious that there are savings to be made which can be devoted to looking after more patients. If the Ministry of Defence were to make savings of up to 20 per cent., we would be talking about substantial sums.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the Labour party would reverse privatisation. Presumably, in the interests of those who lobby the Labour party and

support it, he would eliminate those savings and go back to the spending levels which previously existed. If that is the vision that the hon. Member is offering to the electorate, I do not understand where that will lead to. He solemnly promised £500 million more on behalf of a future Labour Government. I do not think that he had the slightest authority from his shadow Chancellor to say so, but I may be contradicted. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman promised £500 million more in real terms.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West is committed to abolishing health charges, which in itself would absorb more than £400 million of that £500 million of new money. If he were to reverse the savings on tendering, he would overshoot his £500 million total before he even started. That financial commitment, even if he could make it, would, when combined with his other policy commitments, wipe out any advances that he might otherwise make in patient care. The monument to Socialism described by the hon. Member for Oldham, West is a return to what happened twice under a Labour Government. They would return to real cuts in NHS financing. That is something which we have never done and never propose to do.
What are health authorities to do in the face of the Labour party resisting savings which it could make by reducing the costs of support services? Opposition Members made a great issue of Barking and claimed that privatisation had damaged Barking's interests. However, cleaning in Barking has always been carried out by a private contractor, and the same private contractor was given the tender at a reduced price after a fresh tendering process. Barking health authority now makes a saving. ft cut manning levels, but not wage rates. Barking has saved £143,000 in a year. — [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to listen. That £143,000, I am assured by the chairman of the Barking health authority, is being spent on improved nurse staffing levels and a night community nursing service. The Labour party is putting pressure on me and on the health authority to reverse those savings, to reinstate the previous arrangements and to go back to high staffing and high cost cleaning at the expense of improvements in nursing services.
I ask the more responsible members of the Labour party, who have been outnumbered in the Chamber for most of the day, to ask themselves why they are putting pressure on the health authority to go back to high cleaning costs at the expense of nursing improvements, at the request of the people on the picket line inside and outside Barking hospital. Greenham common women and Kent miners are turning up. They take no notice of the so-called TUC guidelines about emergency supplies. In response to that pressure, the Labour party is eager to put up cleaning costs again in Barking to the level required by NUPE, and they have the nerve to say that we are pressing on because of our interests. The Opposition include 43 hon. Members sponsored by trade unions who are on the TUC health services committee.
At the end of the last Labour Government, Mr. Roland Moyle, the then Minister for Health, was a NUPE-sponsored Member. He went through an entire strike with divided loyalties because the union was trying to close the service down and he, supposedly, was trying to keep it going.
We know why we had that performance at the beginning of today's debate. We know why the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) went into a


diatribe, dragging out all his old and favourite phrases. We know why we had a procession of Members of Parliament, who do not often attend our health debates, getting in their points of order about outside interests. The reason was that two general secretaries of trade unions were sitting in the box under the Gallery. The general secretary of NUPE and the general secretary of COHSE were sitting there watching their creatures perform.

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) should not do things like that.

Mr. Clarke: It seems that I am being provocative. I am sure that not only my hon. Friends regret that members of a once great party should put on a lot of silly badges, sit here and perform in front of two general secretaries of two powerful unions. We are as concerned as anyone on the Opposition Benches about staff interests.
Throughout today's debate there has not been a mention of the pay and conditions of nurses. There are a few nurses in COHSE, and fewer in NUPE, but they do not count inside the trade union movement, because they do not take industrial action. Labour Members, so passionate about nurses' pay two years ago, know that the recent settlement of nurses' pay was a triumph of common sense over militancy. The Government chose a special case with public support and gave those dedicated people an independent review body. We took the advice of that review body and gave a special case award in this year's pay round. That is our approach to the NHS—that and delivering patient care. I am sorry that our critics are driven by unpleasant pressures to make such a performance of themselves and such an unconstructive contribution.

Mr. Michael Cocks: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 297.

Division No. 393]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Clarke, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnett, Guy
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Tony
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cowans, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Crowther, Stan


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Caborn, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)





Deakins, Eric
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Douglas, Dick
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dubs, Alfred
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Park, George


Faulds, Andrew
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Pavitt, Laurie


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Redmond, M.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Garrett, W. E.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Golding, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gould, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ryman, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sedgemore, Brian


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Haynes, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Janner, Hon Greville
Snape, Peter


John, Brynmor
Soley, Clive


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Leighton, Ronald
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Litherland, Robert
Tinn, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Torney, Tom


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Loyden, Edward
Wareing, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Weetch, Ken


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Welsh, Michael


McGuire, Michael
White, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKelvey, William
Winnick, David


McNamara, Kevin
Woodall, Alec


McTaggart, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McWiiliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martin, Michael
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton and


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. John Home Robertson.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Beith, A J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, William


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Ashdown, Paddy
Best, Keith


Aspinwall, Jack
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Blackburn, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Anthony
Bottomley, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia






Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brinton, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bulmer, Esmond
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Harvey, Robert


Butler, Hon Adam
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hayes, J.


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Cartwrlght, John
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Hickmet, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hirst, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hooson, Tom


Coombs, Simon
Hordern, Peter


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Corrie, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Couchman, James
Howells, Geraint


Cranborne, Viscount
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dover, Den
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dunn, Robert
Johnston, Russell


Durant, Tony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eggar, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Emery, Sir Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Evennett, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Key, Robert


Fallon, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Farr, Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Favell, Anthony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Fletcher, Alexander
Knowles, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fox, Marcus
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Franks, Cecil
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lester, Jim


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Peter


Freud, Clement
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Galley, Roy
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maclean, David John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mather, Carol


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian





Meadowcroft, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Moore, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Murphy, Christopher
Sumberg, David


Needham, Richard
Tapsell, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Norris, Steven
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Terlezki, Stefan


Osborn, Sir John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Penhaligon, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, Barry
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Price, Sir David
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Walden, George


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rost, Peter
Wallace, James


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Dennis


Ryder, Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Raymond


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Woodcock, Michael


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Speller, Tony
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Derek



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Ian Lang and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Steel, Rt Hon David

Question accordingly negatived.

Question,That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 195.

Division No. 394]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, William


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Best, Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Blackburn, John


Baldry, Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert






Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brinton, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Browne, John
Harris, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Harvey, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hickmet, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hooson, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cormack, Patrick
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Critchley, Julian
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dover, Den
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawler, Geoffrey


Farr, Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Anthony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Major, John


Freeman, Roger
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Mather, Carol


Galley, Roy
Maude, Hon Francis


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Greenway, Harry
Moynihan, Hon C.





Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Needham, Richard
Stokes, John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Newton, Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Norris, Steven
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Osborn, Sir John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Terlezki, Stefan


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitfield, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Raymond


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spencer, Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mr. John Hunt and


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell, Ian


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clarke, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnett, Guy
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Coleman, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Benn, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bidwell, Sydney
Cowans, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Boyes, Roland
Craigen, J. M.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Caborn, Richard
Deakins, Eric


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dobson, Frank
Janner, Hon Greville


Dormand, Jack
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Douglas, Dick
John, Brynmor


Dubs. Alfred
Johnston, Russell


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kennedy, Charles


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Eastham, Ken
Lambie, David


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Lamont, Norman


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Leighton, Ronald


Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Faulds, Andrew
Litherland, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fisher, Mark
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Flannery, Martin
Loyden, Edward


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Foster, Derek
McCrea, Rev William


Foulkes, George
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Freud, Clement
McKelvey, William


Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman
McTaggart, Robert


Golding, John
Madden, Max


Gould, Bryan
Martin, Michael


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maxton, John


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan


Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Harman, Ms Harriet
Meadowcroft, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Michie, William


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mikardo, lan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Haynes, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Nellist, David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
Brien, William


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Neill, Martin


Howells, Geraint
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Park, George





Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pavitt, Laurie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter
Straw, Jack


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Redmond, M.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Tinn, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Torney, Tom


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wallace, James


Rooker, J. W.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Weetch, Ken


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Ryman, John
White, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Gordon


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodall, Alec


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon J.



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Austin Mitchell.


Snape, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on its record of increasing the resources and efficiency of the National Health Service; applauds the higher level of service provided by the National Health Service and its staff which this has made possible; and supports the Government in its determination to maintain and develop a 'modern health service, giving maximum value to the public as patients and taxpayers.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
This is important legislation. The community in Northern Ireland continues to be subject to criminal attack from terrorists, and exceptional powers are therefore necessary for the protection of people in the Province. The House will know that this is the first occasion for some years that the issue of renewal has been put before Parliament against a background of a comprehensive and independent review of the emergency legislation.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel lonely? Before he started his speech, two or three of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, were in the Chamber, but they have now gone. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe in what he is saying?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman would have done better to keep his mouth shut.
Sir George Baker delivered his report to me in March, and it was published in April. I have already made clear my regard for Sir George and for the depth, sincerity and clarity of his review. All hon. Members will have been deeply saddened to hear of his recent death. I take this opportunity—I am sure that all hon. Members join me—to pay tribute to him.
The review of the emergency provisions legislation was Sir George's last public duty. His report showed the same remarkable qualities of humanity and fairness that marked all his work. Everyone who met him during his review was deeply impressed by the speed with which he grasped the complexity of the political and security situation in Northern Ireland. Moreover, we were all impressed by the depth of feeling which he quickly developed for the people of the Province. We were fortunate to receive a report from someone of such independence and powerful judicial integrity.
There is no doubt that it is of vital importance that the emergency legislation applying in Northern Ireland should be subject to independent review from time to time so as to inform us in our regular scrutiny of such measures. The spirited and readable quality of Sir George's report will, I hope, stimulate and prompt wide-ranging debate in the House and throughout the country. There will be an opportunity in due course to debate Sir George's detailed conclusions and recommendations very thoroughly. I shall take most careful note of everything that is said in framing the Government's eventual response.
Of course, some of Sir George's recommendations will require a great deal of study and consultation. Others can only be considered when the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill has reached the statute book. But I must make it clear that the Government are in broad agreement both with the tone of Sir George's report and with most of his conclusions and recommendations.
Our starting point has been that we are committed to ridding the statute book of all emergency measures as soon

as improvements in the security situation allow. Until that time, those measures which remain necessary to enable the security forces to deal effectively with terrorism must be maintained with the minimum possible effect on the ordinary civil liberties of the citizens. We are also committed to seeing that these measures are enforced with due sensitivity. To decide what measures are necessary, we must have a realistic appreciation of the continuing capacity of terrorists to commit their appalling crimes of violence. Moreover, we must recognise that emergency measures of themselves are insufficient to deal completely with terrorism. As I said in the House on Monday, political and economic development within the Province are crucial to the long and hard fight to bring terrorism to an end and in increasing the identification of all parts of, the community with the forces of law and order.
Sir George makes it clear, and the Government share his view, that there is no scope at present for making wholesale or fundamental changes to the emergency legislation which currently applies in the Province. Events since the last renewal of the Emergency Provisions Act have regrettably underlined this conclusion.
I should remind the House that since 1 December 1983, there have been 47 deaths arising from the security situation in the Province. I know that hon. Members whose constituencies and preoccupations are on this side of the channel will appreciate from this hideous statistic just what violence confronts the community in Northern Ireland and the dreadful strains it imposes on the whole community, and I do not think that we should be in any doubt about the special strains that it imposes on Members of Parliament who come from Ulster and who have to bear the heat and burden of the day.
Whatever the temporary setbacks, the resolve of the Government and of the security forces remains absolute. We are committed to enforcing the rule of law which is fundamental to any civilised society, and we are committed to doing it according to the highest standards of impartiality and justice. The initial responsibility for implementing this policy falls of course on the courageous and dedicated members of the security forces. I believe we owe a heavy debt to the extra ordinarily high standards of professionalism and devotion displayed by all the security forces in carrying out their duties under the law.
It may help the House if I give a few figures to illustrate some of the success which the security forces are having in tackling terrorism. I do this because it is murders that make news. The successes that the security forces have had do not make news.
Over the six-month period from the beginning of December to the end of May, 272 people were charged with terrorist-type offences, including 56 for murder and attempted murder, and 86 for firearms and explosives offences. In the same period, over 7,000 lb of explosives were found and a large number of devices containing over 4,000 lb of explosive were neutralised. These are the actual finds. They do not deal with the number of terrorist attacks that were frustrated as a result of security action, and they are numerous.
In an environment in which terrorists seek to infect the community with suspicion and distrust for the very institutions that make humane government and an ordered society possible, we must constantly be on our guard against propaganda and smear tactics. We must build and sustain confidence in the security forces, and especially in the police who have the primary responsibility for


enforcing the law. To do this, we must recognise the dangers they face daily, on and off duty. On those occasions on which the police are confronted by criminals who are or appear to be armed, we must face the fact squarely that they have, and indeed must have, a legal right to defend themselves using reasonable force and to protect the lives of others. Like every other citizen—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: How does the Secretary of State distinguish between "appear to have arms" and "suspected of having arms"?

Mr. Prior: It is not for me to draw that distinction. It is difficult for a constable, a policeman or a soldier, faced with such a decision, to make it in a split second. Such decisions have to be made not only in Northern Ireland. There have also been recent cases in this country when the same sort of problems were faced.
The hon. Gentleman and the House know that the security forces in Northern Ireland—the Ulster Defence Regiment, the part-timers, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army—as well as the judiciary and politicians, now bear the brunt of the terrorist attacks. These are difficult matters for them. I personally believe that the manner in which the security forces have carried out their duties has been absolutely exemplary. If there have been any lapses—there are bound to be from time to time—the same people have been subject to the law in exactly the same way as others. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman also feels that the manner in which the security forces have behaved in Northern Ireland is exemplary. They have a fantastically difficult job. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want any other thought to go out from the House tonight except that they behave in the most exemplary manner.
A member of the security forces who uses force is answerable to the courts, which will have to decide on its reasonableness in the particular circumstances of the case. Those circumstances are extremely varied. The pressures of having to make split-second decisions cannot be wished away. We must not confuse such situations with summary execution or a policy of "shoot to kill". No such policy is possible under the rule of law and could not and never will be tolerated.
I shall give the hon. Gentleman another illustration of the difficulties. Quite recently in west Belfast a house was surrounded by policemen who had good reason to believe that there were terrorists inside. When they went to the door of the house, the three policemen were shot from inside by one of the alleged terrorists. They did not have a chance to shoot back; they were just shot. One man was killed and two were seriously injured. One of the terrorists shot himself in circumstances that we do not completely understand. That is the sort of risk that policemen take while doing their daily job in Northern Ireland. It does not happen in many other places.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the police and the Army have all the necessary resources to carry out their tasks effectively. Hon. Members will recall that I recently authorised an additional 500 posts for the RUC. I hope that those fresh vacancies will all be filled by the end of the financial year or, in the case of the 250 full-time regular RUC men, by the end of the calendar year.
One of the most virulent propaganda campaigns about which I advised circumspection a moment ago is of course

directed at the use of accomplice evidence. There is nothing new about that form of evidence, which is firmly rooted in British law, but the decision of some former terrorists to turn their backs on their colleagues has led to cries of "Betrayal" and bitter attacks on all such evidence, no matter what the circumstances of the particular case. But it is for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to assess the allegations of an accomplice and determine their value against the background of any other evidence which can be presented. It is for the judge to determine how much weight should be put on it and he must give his reasoning when setting out his eventual judgment. This process is in the public interest. It is not a matter for Ministers or for political interference.
The Act provides for trial by a judge sitting alone for persons accused of specific scheduled offences. It contains additional arrest and detention powers for the police and the Army, together with certain exceptional powers of search and seizure. The Act also provides for the proscription of certain criminal organisations. The Act does not alter the central principles of British justice as they apply in the Province The onus remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons have the right to take legal advice of their choice and to be represented by their own lawyers in open court, and there remains the right of appeal against conviction or sentence on matters of law and fact.
I fully recognise that emergency powers are not the answer to Northern Ireland's problems. We all recognise that, and I hope that Opposition Members who have objected to the legislation—

Sir John Farr: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, will he confirm that people tried in open court have the benefit of legal aid if they need it?

Mr. Prior: Yes, they have legal aid, and the best possible advice. A reason why there is often a delay in bringing cases to trial is that defendants are intent on having specialised legal advice and certain barristers only. That is their right and they are perfectly entitled to it. But that is a reason why it takes time before some cases come to court.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but I must pursue this point. Today the Secretary of State said that the reason involved the choice of counsel. At Question Time last week he said that it was a question of the different supergrasses presenting different charges and so changing the nature of the indictment. What are the real reasons? Is it not that the Government cannot prepare their cases in time and so we have internments without trial?

Mr. Prior: That is not true. There are a variety of reasons. First, other charges are often brought against people while they are on remand. Secondly, there is the problem of defence counsel and of congestion in the courts. The process has been speeded up and I am doing all I can to speed it up further. The average time spent on remand is 46 weeks, which is still too long but better than before.
I am aware of the difficulties of the Act, but we must have these measures at the moment. The crimes in Northern Ireland mean that we are still in a state of emergency.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On the question of the delay of justice, will my right hon. Friend say something about the Baker recommendations to appoint another High Court judge in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: I am not dealing directly with the Baker recommendations, because we shall have a proper debate on them. His recommendation to have another High Court judge is for the Lord Chancellor and has my full support. We need another High Court judge as quickly as possible. Anything that can be done to speed up the course of justice must be done, because it will remove some arguments that are raised by hon. Members.
The Government will do everything within their power to develop the political and economic fabric of the Province in order to reduce and eventually to eliminate the tensions and problems which lie at the root of this violence. I look for assistance from every responsible quarter to that end, within Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I have been heartened by the strength of the Republic's commitment to tackling terrorism, which is as much a threat to them as it is to us. The close and effective working relationship between the two police forces on either side of the border remains a key and valuable element in the fight against terrorism. We whole-heartedly approve this co-operation and are ready to look realistically at practical ways of developing it further. Equally, we welcome the strong condemnation of terrorism and its supporters given recently by the President of the United States. Terrorism is indeed a problem which goes much wider than Northern Ireland and we are very ready to act internationally to counter it.
Despite those efforts, the work of the security forces, and the political developments that I would like to see, I hope the House will accept that for the time being the emergency powers we have must remain in place. They are still needed to sustain the whole confidence of the community in the rule of law, and in the willingness and ability of this Parliament, where the ultimate responsibility lies, to support the security forces and courts who are upholding it.
I ask therefore that the House approve that the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 which are currently in force should be allowed to continue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 11.55 pm, and I ask for brevity.

Mr. Peter Archer: When the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 was placed on the statute book the Government of the day wisely included the section that we now have as section 33 which provided for a review of the main provisions by the House at six-monthly intervals.
The reason for that was explained on Second Reading by Lord Whitelaw, as he now is. He said:
It is the Government's intention that none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force for a moment longer than it is needed."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 278.]
The then Attorney-General, now Lord Rawlinson, asserted that the measures were draconian and alien to many of us.
That approach was wise. All of us who have studied civil rights at various times and places know how easy it

is to introduce a measure, honestly believing that it is temporary and necessary to deal with an emergency and intended to cease when the emergency is over, only to find that it drags on year after year, and sometimes for generation after generation until the necessity for it is taken for granted and it has become an integral part of the administration of justice. The intention was that the House should apply its judgment at six-monthly intervals to consider whether people are better protected from violence by continuing its provisions or whether those provisions may have become counter productive.
The Opposition have attempted to carry out that duty twice each year and to do so responsibly. Our most prejudiced critics cannot accuse us, in the context of Northern Ireland, of opposing the Government, for the sake of opposition. Where we have agreed with the Government we have said so. We have sought to be fair to Ministers and, as the Secretary of State is aware, we have avoided any action that might endanger those people who have to spend their lives in Northern Ireland. We have done that even when it has led to our being misunderstood. I do not shrink from being misunderstood. It is a risk that politicians have to take.
We have no sympathy with lawlessness. I doubt whether any hon. Member has spoken and written on that subject as frequently as I have, and always to emphasise that social justice and anarchy are incompatible, that law and order is protection for the most vulnerable—those who can least afford to buy themselves protection; those who live in the least affluent areas.
No one can accuse us of underestimating the importance of law and order. The Opposition have been incessant in condemning violence in whatever cause. And I echo the tribute which the Secretary of State offered to those who have the unenviable task of maintaining law and order. We are well aware of the work they do.
But we have two anxieties. First, and I saw this repeatedly when I was active in Amnesty International, it is possible in the course of defending a way of life to pollute and distort it to a point where it ceases to be worth preserving. The issue that has given rise to the difficulties in Ireland is how best the people in each tradition can be guaranteed a daily life free from want, free from fear and free from harassment. We have to ensure that those freedoms are not endangered by the authorities.
Secondly, the most effective factor that there can be in the preservation of law and order is for the sympathy of the community to be in favour of law enforcement, and against those who infringe the law. That depends largely on its confidence in the fairness of the methods of law enforcement and the legal processes.
In one respect after another, there has been a dangerous erosion over the past few years in the standards of civil rights in Northern Ireland. The position is seen by the paramilitaries as a war, and they encourage their potential recruits and their supporters to see it in that way. I do not believe that it is any such thing. Murder is murder. But the authorities, and those who demand effective and dramatic action, will not discourage that perception if they, too, see it as a war. Slogans such as "Shoot on sight" are the slogans of war.
If this is to be seen as issue of crime against law and order, the authorities must be seen to be acting in accordance with the highest and most careful traditions of justice. If there is to be an end to terrorism, local communities must see it for what it is. That entails two


things. They must see some hope of an acceptable political settlement through constitutional discussion, and they need to see the agents of law enforcement as themselves the agents of justice. There is a deep sense of resentment and alienation among many decent, normally law-abiding people from both traditions at what they see as oppressive and unfair measures which were adopted in the name of law enforcement.
I do not suggest that these measures were introduced in bad faith. At the time, I have no doubt, they seemed like a good idea. However, this feeling is all part of what has added up to a near despair with constitutional government. People are saying that it does not matter whether you observe the law or not, they will get you either way.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The right hon. and learned Member has made a strong statement about what many people on both sides of the community think. Will he take it from me that he is talking about a small minority of people in Northern Ireland? Most people there are concerned about getting through today to tomorrow, and staying alive into the next day. The people who have expressed the reservations that he is expressing are those who probably have some member of their family behind bars for murdering innocent people, or who will soon have members of their family behind bars for murdering people. The majority of people in Northern Ireland have decided reluctantly that this law is necessary to protect them.

Mr. Archer: That was a somewhat lengthy intervention, but I have seen a number of the people about whom I am talking.

Mr. McCusker: I live among them.

Mr. Archer: I accept that. I do not know the statistics of how many there are, but they are decent people, and I believe that they are law abiding, and I am sure they were telling me the truth. I shall talk about a few of them in a moment. Those who say that that feeling does not exist are shutting their eyes to the facts. I make it clear that that is not the fault of the police. I recognise, as the Secretary of State did, what difficult and dangerous tasks they have to carry out, and I pay tribute to their courage. They are not all perfect. It would be as silly to suggest that they are all without blemish as it would be to assert that they are all part of a dishonest conspiracy, but I doubt whether any police force, having to administer the powers and duties which are imposed on them by this legislation, could have avoided leaving local communities with a sense of alienation.
It is not the fault of the Director of Public Prosecutions, nor of the courts. They, too, are faced with insoluble problems. It is vital that this resentment, mistrust and alienation should be recognised, and that the whole extent and balance of the powers and safeguards should reflect that recognition.
For some years, the Opposition have expressed these anxieties, I hope with moderation and patience, whenever the House has been asked to consider this legislation. As long ago as 1975, the Gardiner committee reviewed the original Act, and concluded that emergency powers
can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community,
They added
and they do not provide lasting solutions.
As I understood him, that was recognised by the Secretary of State. The committee continued:
The continued existence of emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration.

On 22 July 1980, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) reminded the House of what the Gardiner committee had said. He urged that the time had come for a further review, as the House could not pass judgment on the necessity for any or all of the provisions without information as to how they were working. The Government agreed to consider that idea, and on that occasion the official Opposition did not divide the House.
On 10 December 1980 my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) again raised the question, with a similar result. On 2 July 1981, when the Government had not responded, the Opposition moved an amendment to the motion for approval to the effect that it was time for an inquiry. The Government rejected that, and the Opposition divided the House on the amendment, but not on the substantive motion. In December 1981 the Opposition again called for a review, but did not divide the House. On each occasion, it is fair to say, some of my hon. Friends divided the House because they felt strongly on the subject, although there was no official Division, and I pay tribute to the sincerity of their concern.
On 30 June 1982 the Secretary of State at last announced that there was to be a review and, on that basis, again the Opposition did not divide the House. It was not until 5 April 1983 that the Secretary of State announced who was to undertake the review, and then there was a further delay in completing the submissions, admittedly because of the general election.
The Secretary of State appointed Sir George Baker. It is regrettable that his conclusions were constrained by his terms of reference, which began with the words,
Accepting that temporary emergency powers are necessary to combat sustained terrorism and violence.
It might have been better to invite him to say whether that conclusion was supported by his findings. It was the very issue into which he was inquiring, but in the event I doubt whether his conclusions would have been different had those words been omitted, and I make no point about that.
Sir George Baker reported, as the Secretary of State reminded us, in March of this year and his report was presented to Parliament in April. I gave oral evidence, as did many other right hon. and hon. Members. I spoke to Sir George more than once. The report did not say all that I had hoped it would say, but it was careful and conscientious piece of work; it absorbed his interest and fully occupied his mind. It is tragic that he did not live to see what became of it, and echo the Secretary of State's tribute to Sir George. It was my privilege to know him for many years. He made a great contribution to the jurisprudence and public life of this country, and he had a gift that is by no means universal among public men of not being carried away with his own importance. He possessed a sense of humour and a sense of humility, and I saw repeated instances of his capacity for revising his first impressions in the light of other people's views. He was, above all, a good listener.
The Government have had that report since March. No one looked for instant reactions; of course, it was necessary to consider it. Perhaps it was even necessary to consult, although Sir George had already consulted widely. But the Government have not even consulted the House. The Opposition have called repeatedly for a debate; the Leader of the House told us there would be a debate, but like Joseph he has never named the day. Now the Secretary of State asks the House to extend the provisions of the Act without amendment, and without


implementing even the limited recommendations of the report. Perhaps understandably in the circumstances, he told the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) tonight that he could not discuss the detailed recommendations of the report.
Had we been given the opportunity, the Opposition would have argued for amendments more extensive than those that Sir George recommended. Of course, we would not have sought a complete repeal of the Act; we recognise that the time for a return to complete normality in Northern Ireland is not yet, but we would have urged some changes. We would have wished to discuss the recommendations relating to bail, especially the proposal for an unconditonal entitlement to bail for those who have been on remand awaiting trial for more than 12 months. The reasons why there has been a delay do not matter; what is important is that in no civilised community should someone be imprisoned, unconvicted, for that period.
I constantly receive letters from families of men who have been detained, unconvicted, sometimes for successive periods as one set of charges is withdrawn and they are re-arrested on others. May I quote briefly from a letter that I received this week:
I am writing to you as a mother whose son has been held on `five supergrasses' and in all these cases there was no corroborated evidence.
She added,
My son has been held since February 1982 and has been told he will not get a trial until 85 or 86.
We would have wished to discuss Sir George's recommendation for the descheduling of many offences where there is no obvious connection with terrorism. Mr. Dermot Walsh claimed recently to have discovered that 40 per cent. of those tried in the Diplock courts had no observable connection with terrorism. We would have wished to discuss Sir George's proposal for the requirement of a reasonable suspicion for arrest without warrant.
It is unfair both to the police and to citizens to have so ill-defined a power as at present, to stop people going about their lawful business and to take them into custody. We would also have wished to urge matters going further than the Baker recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of supergrass evidence. Of course, in certain circumstances most jurisdictions introduce accomplice evidence, but there are features of its use in Northern Ireland which mark this out as unique in its dangers of injustice and its occasions for loss of public confidence in the legal system.
First, there are the numbers who are tried together on one indictment. I am aware of the reasons why that is thought necessary, but I do not believe it possible for anyone to consider evidence against 30 or 40 defendants without allowing at least one of them to be smeared by a piece of evidence which, in fairness, does not implicate him.
Even Sir George recommended 20 as the maximum number of defendants to be tried on one indictment. I would argue that 20 is far too many to receive a fair trial in those circumstances.
Secondly, there is the fact that trial is by a judge alone, without a jury. In Great Britain it is the function of the judge to warn a jury of the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence. One of the purposes, perhaps the principal purpose, served by

separating the function of judge and jury is that such warnings make a substantial impact. There can be no similar impact where the judge attempts to warn himself and simply endeavours to keep it in his mind.
Thirdly, the kind of witnesses on whom the Crown has relied again and again are men who on their own admission have been at the very centre of paramilitary activities, knowing no moral standards but such as serve the purpose of their organisation, with an overwhelming temptation to pay off old scores, and with a motive to please the authorities by lengthening the list of those they implicate. They cannot be seen by the public as people on whose uncorroborated evidence it is safe to convict.
I am, of course, aware that responsibility for initiating and conducting prosecutions does not lie with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State says, "Let the Director decide the merits of each individual case", but the Director is in an impossible position. Naturally, he says, "Where there is evidence that is capable of being believed, it is not for me to adjudicate on it. I must place it before the courts".
The judges cannot introduce a universal rule as to what evidence should be believed. They, too, can decide each case only on its merits. We need a general rule, introduced by legislation for the guidance of the courts, that at least in Diplock cases accomplice evidence will not support a conviction in the absence of corroboration. The legislation can be introduced only by the Secretary of State, and it could sensibly be included in an amending Bill.
These are some of the matters we would have wished to debate, but there is no time to debate them tonight. That is precisely our complaint. This debate should have followed, not preceded, the debate on the Baker report. The House is asked to renew these provisions with no such debate, and without even the improvements proposed by Sir George Baker. It is not on.
The Opposition would not be facing up to the consequences of our judgment, repeated time and again, if we agreed to this order. We have only two choices—to agree to a continuation of these powers without any change, or to vote against their continuance. That is what we propose to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
We are not discussing the position without the order. We are discussing the repeated calls to the Government to make the amendments which, with great restraint, the Opposition have proposed. We are confronted with a stark choice, and that is the Government's doing.
I have a sense of reality. It has been driven into my heart in this Parliament by repeated experience of winning the argument and losing the vote. The Government have multiplied the offence by arranging this business so that the Division will take place at 11.30 on a Thursday evening, when it is known that many hon. Members must travel in order to meet their weekend commitments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I observe the comments and faces of some Government Members. There is no grin on the faces of the Secretary of State or the Minister because they know that if they wish the Opposition to try to understand their difficulties they must have some regard for the rights of minorities, not only in Northern Ireland, but in this House.
Some hon. Members will seek to distort our reasons and seek to portray us as being unmindful of the victims of violence, or even as encouraging the men of violence. But there are hon. Members on all Benches who have given serious thought to these matters, and who will know that


potential victims are best protected from violence by public support for law and order, born of a careful scrutiny of every provision to ensure its fairness. I invite them to join us in the Lobby tonight.

Rev. William McCrea: I appreciate that we must be as brief as possible, to allow as many hon. Members as possible to participate in the debate. I welcome the opportunity to address the House, but I do not do so with joy, because all hon. Members will regret that such legislation is required in the United Kingdom.
It is necessary to comment on the background to the emergency legislation before expressing opinions on items requiring review or comment. The emergency legislation was enacted as a weapon in the armoury against terrorism, which was rampant at the time the initial legislation was introduced. Unfortunately, that terrorism persists.
I accept that the legislation was never intended to become a permanent feature of the legal process, but to date its continuation is inevitable—unfortunately. The overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland is to witness the total defeat of terrorism and a return to the normal legal position and peace and normality for all Northern Ireland citizens.
My constituents have suffered much from IRA outrages and murder gangs. Many young widows, orphans, brokenhearted parents and shattered family circles are left to carry an unbearable load. [Interrupion.] I hear mutterings from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I have never once seen him holding the hand of an Ulster widow, or of an Ulster father who has a broken heart because of a son cut down by the murderous thugs who are rampant in our country. Until that hon. Gentleman has the decency to come into our Province and sympathise with those stricken by bereavement, it is better for him to be silent in the House.
I commend the courage displayed by such families throughout the years of tragedy. I salute their solemn and quiet determination never to give in to the murdering thugs and gangsters of the IRA. I pay tribute especially to the families in the border areas, where the terrorists seek to drive the Protestants away from their homes and farms. A deliberate campaign has been conducted against isolated farming communities. Unfortunately, successive Governments have failed to restore peace in Northern Ireland. There seems to be an unwillingness to initiate an offensive strategy to win the war against terrorism. Defensive measures have certainly been taken, but I believe that to rid our Province of terrorism we shall need to take offensive measures against the terrorists, who at the moment are safe in their terrorist dens.
The failure to end the campaign of murder and violence that stalks the Province is, in my opinion, caused by the failure of security policy in Northern Ireland. It has not been caused by any failure on the part of the security personnel. The policy under which they operate, however, gives rise to genuine and grievous concern. Every hon. Member should, in common decency, salute the bravery of the members of the security forces—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the RUC Reserve, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army. They have stood in the front line and protected the law-abiding citizens. I unreservedly and totally give the highest praise to the members of the security forces. They deserve it.
Unfortunately, the order that we are debating relates to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which shows that the emergency is continuing.
In principle, I look forward to the return of jury trials for criminal offences. I recognise the immense diffiulties involved in having trial by jury for serious terrorist offences. I recognise also the problems involved in the siting of the trial and the intimidation, selection and ultimate safety of the jurors. All those problems must be dealt with if there is to be a fair trial. Given the situation which has developed in Northern Ireland, I understand the need for the existence of section 7 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which allows for trial by judge alone, but as an additional safeguard, I believe that consideration should be given to the idea that all cases should be heard by a panel of three judges.
I am also concerned about the excessive delays which can occur between arrest and trial. In particular, such delays should be avoided where bail has been refused and the defendant is held in custody. I appreciate the difficulties involved and the great burden placed upon court administration, the police and legal personnel, but, in the interests of justice, it is desirable that delays should be kept to a minimum and trials expedited.
I wish to refer also to mandatory minimum sentences. The House should be alarmed by the fact that over one third of all who are convicted of terrorist offences escape a custodial sentence. The current sentencing policy and practice are in urgent need of a thorough review.
Finally, there is the question of proscribed organisations. I am sorry that I do not have time to give my views in detail. I make no apology for stating that I believe that Provisional Sinn Fein should be a proscribed organisation. Even the position in the South of Ireland is preferable to that in Northern Ireland. Have hon. Members considered how a widow must feel when the front men for terrorists appear on the television screen and, with brazen cheek, glorify acts of terrorism?
The powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act are not used to the full. Section 21(1)(6), refers to anyone who
solicits or invites financial or other support for a proscribed organisation".
That power could have been more widely used. Ulster people believe that on several occasions in the past Sinn Fein leaders could have been prosecuted for urging support for the Provisional IRA and for acts of terrorism. That section should be used, as it is clear that bodies such as Sinn Fein are mere front organisations for terrorist groups.
I support the retention of the Act, and trust that all hon. Members feel similarly. I trust that we shall see an end to terrorism and therefore an end to the need for the Act, but while the emergency lasts the Act should remain in force so that we can deal properly with events.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: When I first spoke on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 on 8 December last year, I found it useful to look up what was said in earlier debates on the renewal of the Act. In May and December 1983, Ministers made much of the fact that Sir George Baker was reviewing the operation of the Act. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) expressed support for such a review and said that he would welcome it and the subsequent debate. The right hon. and learned Member for


Warley, West (Mr. Archer) raised the matter again today. they have a right to feel considerable grievance at being asked yet again to extend the Act for a further six months, before the House has been given the opportunity to debate the Baker report. However, I could observe that it would not have been beyond the bounds of possiblity for an Opposition Supply day to be allocated to the matter if they were as anxious as we are to discuss the Baker report.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that we have repeatedly been promised by the Leader of the House that there will be a debate? That was intended to mean that the debate would be in Government time.

Mr. Maginnis: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but the report should be debated urgently. If he is as anxious as he says he is—I have no reason to doubt him—he could have tried harder to ensure that the report was debated. It was presented to the House in April and it should have been accorded the importance that I think it merits.
I should also like to pay tribute to the late Sir George Baker. I met him a couple of times and found him a humane and understanding man. He was patient and obviously dedicated to learning all that he could about the subject on which he had to report. I know that he felt deeply about the death of my colleague, Edgar Graham, who was murdered by the IRA and who had submitted evidence to him. It was typical of Sir George that he expressed his sympathy to Edgar Graham's family and my party.
My party will support the order. We share Sir George's reservations about the validity after 11 years of referring to the Act as emergency legislation. He admitted, as do we, that it is temporary and renewable but it is hardly an emergency. The continued killing by terrorists is, as Sir George said, neither "sudden nor unexpected" to those of us who live in Northern Ireland, although the Secretary of State usually seems able to act as though it is. I do not want to pick on the Secretary of State tonight, although I am aware that it would not worry him a great deal if I did, but he has puzzled me occasionally in the past three years.
When there is an emergency—for example, when somebody is killed—the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that he will not be rushed into taking precipitate action. He will not be rushed after three years? I often wonder what he means when he uses such phrases and why we have not seen rather more urgency from him when it comes to protecting my constituents along the frontier.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to there having been 47 deaths since last December. I thought, when he spoke of that matter, that he was beginning to understand how those of us feel who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. But he rather spoiled that impression I had of him when he referred to "these temporary setbacks." That did not make me feel that he appreciated the need for urgency in the matter.
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the security forces who serve under difficult conditions, often with qualified sympathy from some hon. Members. There is the possibility — it will not happen this year — that the Ministry of Defence will withdraw the Northern Ireland emergency allowance of £2·15 a day. It would be scandalous if that allowance—I do not call it danger money because I do not believe that it has been intended

to be danger money—were withdrawn, for it is given for a special type of operation that the Army carries out in Northern Ireland. It provides a little compensation for the forces who come there, with their families, for two years, yet the Army pay review body has talked about possibly doing away with the allowance.
For their own safety, neither the soldiers nor their families leave the camp in which they live for that two-year period, except when the men are on duty, and during their spells of duty they work under the most arduous conditions. I hope, therefore, that there will be no more talk about abolishing the Northern Ireland allowance.
We should not need to go through this routine of renewing the emergency provisions Act. It is clear that we shall not be able to do without this legislation for some time to come. Eleven years have shown that we could safely renew the provisions, say, bienially and thereby save the House from the frustration of having to listen to some of the cant and hypocrisy of those who will undoubtedly advocate its repeal before this night is out.
Only those who would capitulate in the face of terrorism or who nurse a latent sympathy for a particular terrorist faction would employ such a strategy. Those of us who live with terrorism know that the Act was a valuable aid to the police in reducing the amount of retaliatory violence that Northern Ireland suffered in the mid-1970s.
As the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights states,
the people of Northern Ireland still require special protection from terrorism, and for this reason we agree that some exceptional measures are still required.
Sir George Baker clearly recognised that the emergency provisions Act is required to help bring to justice the men who are committed to violence, and that it is the duty of society to balance our desire to protect human rights with an acceptance of our human duties. He said that many who attack the Act, the forces of law and order and the judicial system do so not to protect our rights and liberties but for sinister reasons, and that any attempt to protect our people would be opposed by them. I agree with him and I see daily that those who oppose the Act most strongly are those who employ the law of the jungle. They beat young men unconscious with hurling sticks, blast their knee joints with guns and, when they summarily decree, blow their heads off, as they did with Jimmy Campbell when they murdered him in a Falls road club on 9 June. And these are their own co-religionists.
In recognising the need to continue to implement the Act, Sir George Baker was aware that it was not ideal legislation, and on occasion was forthright in his criticism. My party fully agrees with Sir George. It continues to be disturbed by the delay in bringing to trial those who are charged with serious offences. The Minster must tell us more clearly what progress he has made and hopes to make in reducing the delay. If delays are attributable to lack of defence counsel, it is up to the prosecution to bring the men to court. If that is done, the public will hear that it is the defence which is not ready to proceed with the case. We do not want suspect terrorists to be freed on bail without having to answer the charge in court. Sir George made it clear that he considered a delay longer than a year to be too long.
We all know that if any IRA man is freed on bail he will have little trouble finding a safe haven in the Irish Republic. The bail money is usually obtained from the


proceeds of a bank robbery or by threatening some unfortunate Roman Catholic business man who, in fear of his life, dare not refuse the demand. In the constituency adjacent to mine, a Roman Catholic business man was blown up and killed for refusing to meet a demand from the IRA.
Another area of mutual concern is the treatment of young persons convicted of scheduled offences, who are normally known as SOSPs. These young men are held at the Secretary of State's pleasure, as they were only lads under 18 years of age when they committed their offences. Eleven years later, in some instances, they are the forgotten victims of the violence that they barely understood when they first became involved. I draw the Minister's attention to Sir George's comments without further emphasis, because I have applied to Mr. Speaker to be allowed to raise the matter on the motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 1 at some future date.
My party recognises the need to have the Act reviewed. It has made no secret of the fact that it wants to see the strictest application of the law that is necessary to deal with terrorism. It wants to ensure that it is good and just law. The matters that I have referred to in the Baker report and others must be taken on board by the Government as a matter of urgency. If we fail to do so, we shall lose yet another propaganda battle and the Act will be devalued rather than revalued.
Governments owe it to the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland to provide the best laws and not the second best. The Baker report suggests, but not in so many words, that we are getting the second best. That is not because it is inherently bad, as some will attempt to prove, but because it is not administered speedily enough, it is unbending where it might be merciful and it is ineffective where it needs to be strong.
Baker realised that the provisional IRA leadership or Sinn Fein leadership—it is one and the same thing—is engaged in both terrorist and political battles with the Government. He wants, and I and my party want, to see people like Adams and Morrison properly dealt with when they incite others to murder and maim. If the existing law is unable to deal with them, we must amend it. If necessary — I know that I will be opposed on this in certain quarters—we must have selective internment for people such as Adams and Morrison.
How can we assemble here to debate this order every six months, yet not appear to care that we have failed to bring to justice those who, brazenly and openly, advocate the slaughter of British citizens? Those are the real issues to which we should apply ourselves tonight, rather than some of the diversions with which certain hon. Members regularly assail us. If our courts cannot be seen to deal with the purveyors of violence, other elements will be tempted to do so. No one in my party wants the shame of retaliatory killings visited, yet again, on the Unionist and Protestant community to which we belong.
I ask the Minister whether my party has not consistently advised the Northern Ireland Office in much the same terms as Sir George Baker now advises in the report? Let him tell us—were we right, or is Sir George wrong? That is the question to which he must address himself tonight.

Sir John Farr: I, too, congratulate the security forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary on some incredible feats of professionalism and bravery since we last debated this order, but, like everyone in the House, I bitterly regret that, once again, we must discuss it. I look forward to the day, to which most of us look forward, when we will not need to approve an emergency order for Northern Ireland.
We hear much the same things said in the debate from both sides of the House every six months. We hear that the security forces have done a great job, and disquiet is expressed over the present system of legal administration, but one thing that has changed slightly, and significantly, is the professionalism of the terrorist. He is no longer an old boy from the bogs. The professional terrorist is very much to the fore in Northern Ireland.
There are countries and organisations in the world—including Libya and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation—which train professional terrorists from Northern Ireland in the very latest tricks of their trade, in the most scientific way. It is therefore only right and proper that our security forces and the RUC should be trained in a way that is at least as good to combat the sophisticated crimes.
It is no longer enough for our security forces and the RUC to show courage, loyalty and determination. They have to be given the opportunity to be equipped with effective techniques in order to counteract some of the sophisticated terrorist devices used today. I believe that our army receives that training and is well equipped for the techniques that it deploys to counter terrorist activity. I am not sure that the RUC is getting the more than up-to-date training that it needs. How is the new RUC training camp and headquarters complex proceeding? What is its stage of development? Has a site been chosen? The establishment is long overdue. Will it be able to give the RUC the necessary training and modern instruction on how to combat the modern, late 20th century terrorist?
It has been said in the House, and will be said again, that the cause of much of the terrorist strife in Northern Ireland is the large number of idle hands in the Province. There are an exceptionally large number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland, and that has been a cause of great regret to every Government. I pay special tribute to what the Labour party did when in office, because it tried to solve the problems by setting up the De Lorean scheme. The Labour Government provided jobs at De Lorean, but the scheme went awry. I am not one of those who condemn the Opposition for trying to provide more employment by backing De Lorean.
Once tranquillity is restored to the Province, there will be hope once again for tourism. Northern Ireland is one of the most beautiful parts of the world. There is natural beauty and tranquillity there. If we can get on top of terrorism, tourism will provide many tens of thousands of extra jobs.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I, too, express my deep regret at the untimely death of Sir George Baker. He made 74 recommendations. Some of those recommendations were disappointing, but the response by the Secretary of State was even more disappointing. The right hon. Gentleman talked of an eventual response. When will that be? It may not even be in the next Session.
Jury trial should be restored wherever possible. I am told—the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned this—that a number of cases still going through the Diplock courts could be transferred to the ordinary criminal courts. Retaining trials by a single judge is a mistake. We should note public disquiet about that aspect. We are asking any judge to bear too great a burden, especially in the supergrass trials, where there can be up to 41 defendants. There should not be any token immunity for supergrasses.
There is still too long a delay in bringing cases to trial. The Secretary of State said that the average delay was 46 weeks, but some people have been in custody for more than two years. Sir George Baker said that there is to be no independent review of exceptional cases where a defendant persists in claiming his innocence. There are cases of innocent men being in prison. I question that procedure. Sir George drafted a complete new clause on confessions. Will that measure be brought in quickly? That step would not bring us into line with the rest of Britain, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
We recognise that, in the present circumstances, there must be an emergency powers Act. I, too, feel great respect for the security forces. The time has come to implement substantial changes, which must not be long delayed.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Anyone who regards this debate and the renewal of this legislation as an excuse for underpinning the criminal law and the enforcement of justice in Northern Ireland is deluding himself. To explain those actions away just as criminal activity is foolish. We must look at the social, economic and political reasons behind this legislation. Fortunately, to the delight of the House, I do not have the time to do that, but I shall make a number of points in the short time available. So long as the law is seen merely as an instrument to enforce the dominance of one section of the community over another, it will not be accepted.
The Secretary of State spoke of the community seeking and having confidence in the law and its enforcement officers, but he is completely wrong. There is no confidence among the majority of the minority community in the enforcement of the law. There is no confidence in the courts. There is no confidence in the administration of justice because of the use of supergrasses, bills of indictment, and intensive remand as another form of internment without trial. There can be no confidence when thousands and thousands of people are arrested on mere suspicion and few are proceeded against in the courts. There is no confidence that the police and the UDR are intruments for the impartial enforcement of justice. They are seen as sectarian forces. There is no confidence in the judiciary, especially after recent decisions and recent obiter dicta of the judges.
These facts must be understood. Merely to agree to this continuance order is no substitute for the Government trying to gain the confidence of the whole community and trying to create a new opportunity so that people can see that the standards on which we in the House pride ourselves can operate in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
If we have merely the odd hour and a half in which to discuss this matter, we cannot be expected to support the legislation, because we have no opportunity to amend it and to go through the steps which we believe to be necessary to try to get the support of the whole community not only in Northern Ireland but, what is even more important, in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), save only to say that they are damaging to the national interest.
There has been a significant improvement in the security situation in Northern Ireland — it is nowhere near sufficient—and I say that, declaring my interest in the police service, as a result of frequent visits that I am privileged to make to Northern Ireland.
Security has improved for three main reasons. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is now almost certainly the best counter-terrorist force in the world. Its professionalism, its courage and its dedication, to which many hon. Members have paid tribute, are beyond compare. Its relations with the community have improved greatly. It is in fact a community police service. It has established excellent relationships with the Army. This was not always the case, and I pay my tribute to Sir Maurice Oldfield, who was able to improve the liaison between the RUC and the British Army in Northern Ireland.
The second principal reason for the improvement in security is that there is much better cross-border cooperation between the RUC and the Garda. It is right to pay some tribute to the Northern Ireland Police Federation and the Garda representative body, which have come together in many ways of which the House is perhaps not aware. They have been able to establish a person-to-person confidence on both sides of the border, which is quite separate from the rhetoric of politicians. It is a practical working relationship which has helped to make the RUC more able to do the job required of it.
The third reason why there is an improvement is that the United States has to some extent cut off the supply of money and of arms. I pay my tribute to President Reagan here. Under the Carter Administration there was a substantially higher flow of both money and arms, and it is to the credit of the present American Administration that they have taken steps to reduce that substantially. I hope that they go further. The remarks of the President of the United States to the Irish Parliament were most helpful, in that he put out of court many of the aspirations of those south of the border to achieve their purpose by force. Against that background, it is only fair to say that the RUC deserves the tributes paid to it in the House.
Therefore, I find it extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whom I have known in the House for a long time, and for whose moderation of language and commitment to parliamentary democracy I have the greatest admiration, should lead his party into voting against the emergency provisions. I recognise the point that he made. It is a difficult choice for an Opposition, and I understand it. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider what the position would be of our fellow countrymen in the RUC and the British Army if they were tonight to be deprived of the emergency provisions legislation. I do not like the legislation—no one in the House can do so—but to vote


to deprive the armed services and the police of the legislation at this time seems to me to be irresponsible. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels obliged to do so.
I have three matters to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. First, I hope very much that when we debate the Baker report and, I hope, put new legislation on the statute book, my hon. Friend will make sure that the necessary steps are available to deal with the problem of drug running. Quite often these days, drugs are the method by which terrorists finance their activities. It is essential both on this and the other side of the water for the police to have the powers to deal more effectively with drug smuggling.
Secondly, there needs to be much more effective international co-operation in dealing with terrorism. I welcome what was agreed at the summit conference and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the EEC conference on this subject, but I am bound to say, for my part—I think that I speak for a considerable number of people in the police service on both sides of the water—that the Foreign Office has yet to get a grip on the problem of terrorism. From time to time its advice has been inadequate. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary casts the legislation that is required, I hope that he will not be too influenced, on international terrorism, by the advice from the Foreign Office. I hope that he will rely more heavily on the professionalism of the police.
Finally, several matters affect the morale of the RUC. Externally, its moral is sky high. The recruitment shows it. I welcome very much my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision to increase the numbers in the force, but he knows, as I do, that there are problems of housing, particularly in the border areas. When our police in this country go on mutual aid duties, they often complain about the conditions in Nottingham and south Yorkshire. The conditions in which the RUC live in many of the border areas are far worse than that, and the RUC does not complain much about them. The matter needs attention.
There is also the matter of transferring men from one area to another, which is often done capriciously and without good judgment. It is also right that the Police Authority of Northern Ireland should make room for the federation to attend more of its meetings, but I welcome the progress that has been made in that respect. It should go further.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the efforts that they made recently to overcome a small domestic problem concerning social and recreational facilities for the RUC. It is right that the federation has been allowed to provide them. It will help. I hope that when Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Philip Myers, completes his inspection of the force, he will recognise that there has been an improvement in the social and recreational facilities. Overall there is an improvement, but the Act is essential. To deny it to the RUC is to take away its means of protecting the lives and property of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only one Back-Bench Labour Member has spoken during the debate among a whole team of other hon. Members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It is impossible in the time available to answer all the points raised. I shall write to hon. Members who raised specific points, which I have not time to answer.
The House is generally agreed, apart from some predictable dissent, that the renewal of the powers is sad but necessary. Sir George Baker in his report said:
throughout this inquiry over nine months, having read a vast amount of material with many different opinions and spoken with the authors, I have become increasingly more convinced that any provision of the EPA which may save even one life or bring even one guilty terrorist to conviction and sentence should be retained until the paramilitary forces foreswear terrorism unless there is a powerful convincing reason for repeal or amendment".
That was his considered judgment after nine months studying every aspect of the matter. He was supported by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. It said:
the Commission consider that the people of Northern Ireland still require special protection from terrorism and for this reason we agree that some exceptional measures are still required
All hon. Members regret that they are necessary, but the need for them is widely recognised throughout the Province.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described the measures as draconian and criticised them.

Mr. Archer: I did not describe the measures as draconian. I quoted a Conservative Attorney-General.

Mr. Scott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman drew that description into the debate. I accept that we would love to do without these powers, but without them the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army could not pursue the battle against terrorism with the success that they have achieved recently.
I beg the House to understand when hon. Members criticise the use of accomplice evidence and the provisions in the Act that people are alive or unmaimed today who would have been murdered by terrorists if the powers had not been available. I agree that we must find a balance and that we would rather be without them. But Sir George Baker, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid the warmest tribute for the way in which he tackled this work, concluded that we could not do without these powers—broadly as they are.
I hope that we shall soon be able to debate the Baker report in its entirety, but I do not decide the business of the House. As I understand it, had the Opposition wished to debate that report before the House rose for the summer recess, it could have been arranged. However, there was not that sort of pressure for the debate, which is why the House will debate it in the autumn. That is my understanding of the position.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) seemed to imply that the Government were not providing the Army and the RUC with the resources necessary to conduct the exercise against terrorists. By the time we have recruited the extra policemen, the size of the RUC — both the full-time service and the full-time reserve—will have increased by more than 1,100 in two years. That illustrates the Government's commitment and determination to provide the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army with sufficient manpower and resources.
I could raise many other points, but the whole matter is summed up by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in remarks following a recent judgment. He reminded us that 2,000 years ago, Cicero said:
Amid the clash of arms the laws are silent.
The Lord Chief Justice went on to say, as Lord Atkin did during the second world war, that most assuredly in our country that is not true, that peace, order and society can be under fierce and constant attack, but still the law has its way. Although we may have to change the law to deal with the terrorist, the same burden of proof—proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of the offence with which they are charged—

Mr. Flannery: You do not do that.

Mr. Scott: Indeed we do. We provide, as has been said already during the debate, defence counsel of choice at public expense, and the automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, at public expense again. I believe that we try, when society itself is under the most grievous attack from the men of terror, to ensure that all the principles and integrity of the British system of justice are upheld in Northern Ireland.
We should ensure that the judges and those who have the difficult task of enforcing the law—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 70.

Division No. 395]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Cope, John


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Ashdown, Paddy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Anthony
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Dunn, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Durant, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, William
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Farr, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Favell, Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Galley, Roy


Brinton, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Browne, John
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Butler, Hon Adam
Gummer, John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Harvey, Robert


Cartwright, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Chope, Christopher
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Hickmet, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hind, Kenneth





Hirst, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Holt, Richard
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hooson, Tom
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Speller, Tony


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spencer, Derek


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Squire, Robin


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kennedy, Charles
Stern, Michael


Key, Robert
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Sumberg, David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Terlezki, Stefan


Lester, Jim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


McCrea, Rev William
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thornton, Malcolm


McCusker, Harold
Thurnham, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Tracey, Richard


Maclean, David John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maginnis, Ken
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Major, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mather, Carol
Walden, George


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Ward, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Murphy, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth


Needham, Richard
Watts, John


Newton, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Nicholson, J.
Whitney, Raymond


Norris, Steven
Wilkinson, John


Osborn, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Winterton, Nicholas


Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Michael


Porter, Barry
Yeo, Tim


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)



Prior, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dubs, Alfred


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eastham, Ken


Barnett, Guy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McGuire, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McNamara, Kevin


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meacher, Michael






Michie, William
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Snape, Peter


Nellist, David
Soley, Clive


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Redmond, M.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wareing, Robert


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Welsh, Michael


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry



Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Don Dixon and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John McWilliam.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the next sitting of the House on which Motions are moved on behalf of the Committee of Selection, such Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, and, if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him; and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Objection taken.

Phillips Rubber Ltd. (Industrial Dispute)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Ken Eastham: The entire country is aware of the mining dispute, which has lasted for about four months. However, tonight I shall present to the House the details and history of a strike at the Phillips Rubber Company in Dantzic street—a back street in Manchester—which has brought suffering and shame well beyond the bounds of reasonableness and fair play.
The strike was declared and made official by the Transport and General Workers Union on 3 January 1984. The dispute, which involves 102 workers, is still unresolved. It was a consequence of a breakdown in negotiations on the company's final pay offer of a £1.92 increase on a basic wage of £48 a week. The current average national wage for a full-time male worker is £167·50, and for a female worker it is £108·80. A meeting was convened through ACAS on 20 January, but the company still refused to improve its offer. Furthermore, Phillips Rubber threatened the workers involved with summary dismissal if the miserable wage was not accepted and they did not return to work by 7 February.
We hear much about the conduct of strikers; for a change, I shall put on record the unmerciful conduct of an employer, some of whose work force have been loyal employees for more than 30 years. May I also dispense with an assumption sometimes made, that the women are working only for pin money? Nothing could be further from the truth.
When picketing, the strikers have been passive in their conduct, and very little policing has been required. Knowing the details of the shabby brutality accorded to the employees by the company, it is a great wonder to me that there has been no violence during this dispute.
By way of illustration, let me cite the case of one of my constituents, Mr. A. Cooper, who lives in the Moston area of Blackley. He furnished me with photostat copies of letters received from the Phillips Rubber Company. One was dated 9 February 1984, and stated in brief and brutal form:
Dear former employee, Please find enclosed parts 2 and 3 of your P45. Please keep them in a safe place as your new employer will require them when you get a new job. Part 1 has been forwarded to the tax office. Yours faithfully, Phillips Rubber Company Ltd. L. J. Holt, Joint Managing Director.
All the documentation is available for examination. My constituent asked, "If the firm returned my cards, and if I am now unemployed, why can I not receive unemployment benefit?" I pursued this case with the manager of the DHSS and asked for a ruling and detailed summary of Mr. Cooper's circumstances.
Mr. Cooper is a young married man with two children—a daughter under one year and a small son aged two. According to the DHSS assessment — it should be remembered that its figures are based on subsistence level—his minimum total requirements were calculated at £52·65 a week. His income comprised child benefit, £13; family income supplement—because of his starvation wages — £9·90; and strike pay £15. The DHSS concluded that he needed a supplement of £29·75.
However, thanks to the Conservative Government's Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, there was a deduction


of £15 from that figure because this man was on strike, leaving him with a benefit entitlement for his family and himself of £14·75p a week, this at a time when the Manchester Guardian, on 25 June 1984, said that the average weekly food bill was £34·24p.
After I made inquiries on Mr. Cooper's behalf, and received a ruling by the regional adjudicating officer at the Department of Employment, his benefit was finally restored as from 11 June 1984. The whole story is one of complete shame, and many more such cases could be recorded.
That brings me to the question of low pay generally. I recently served on the Select Committee on Employment. The Low Pay Unit told the Committee:
Low wages are a cause of social and economic deprivation and proverty.
Earlier I mentioned the £9.90 paid to Mr. Cooper in FIS because of his Phillips Rubber poverty wages. In reply to my question the Low Pay Unit told the Committee:
One of the main problems with FIS, apart from the fact you have employers telling their staff to go to the DHSS for their pay, is that it causes the poverty trap whereby for every increase in earnings you often lose up to 100 per cent. of that increase in withdrawals of means-tested benefits and tax and national insurance.
If Mr. Cooper had received a wage increase of anything less than £10 per week, his overall increase would be almost nil.
Ever since 1891—confirmed in 1909 and 1946—we have supported the fair wages resolution against sweatshops. To our shame, an early-day motion calls for the abolition of wages councils. The motion, which carries the signatures of 110 Conservative Members, reads:
That this House views with great concern the detrimental effect that wages councils have on the free working of the labour market and in particular the loss of job opportunities for young people; believes that the ending of such restrictions will enable the cost of labour to move to market levels and thereby create new jobs; and therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to abolish wages councils as soon as its international commitment allows.
Today, 7 million adult workers suffer from low pay. That figure excludes young workers. It is easy to see that the figure will be increased if we abolish wages councils. Wages councils are an essential mechanism for the protection of the most vulnerable workers in our society.
I am told that, with a small scab labour force, the Phillips company in Manchester is producing on a small scale. The firm has been fulfilling export orders, including some for the police and the army in South Africa. However, there is undoubtedly continuing and strong feeling throughout the trade unions about this catalogue of shame and this rogue employer who is disgracing the high reputation of my city of Manchester.
Is the Minister prepared to help to put matters right? There is an overwhelming case for an immediate high-level inquiry into the financial and labour affairs of the company. In appalling cases such as this, consideration should be given to the introduction of some form of automatic Government inquiry mechanism, obviating the need to go to a Minister.
Government Departments should not in any way be party to the abuse of workers by firms. Departments should not interpret the rules in such a way as to force workers back on to the mercy of such heartless employers. Despite what some politicians may believe, the general public do not applaud minority firms which behave like a

form of leprosy, eating away at decent forms of conduct towards workers. Although attention is more frequently directed solely at the trade unions, employers are accountable too. In the 1980s, no company in Britain has a licence to treat its work force as brutally as the Phillips Rubber Company does.
These workers are not asking for luxuries. They ask only for the dignity of being able to make ends meet. The Prime Minister, during the general election, talked about the need to return to Victorian values. In a growing number of instances throughout the country, we seem to be rapidly returning to Victorian wage rates, on which workers cannot cope with the cost of living of 1980.
I believe that the Minister of State has the authority to take action to bring the dispute to a fair and just solution. It is a catalogue of shame. The shareholders of the company should re-examine the details of their business undertaking. There are things other than profits and balance sheets to be considered. Morality is important too. I appeal to the Minister to find a positive solution to restore some humanity to this dispute, which has lasted for six months.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I have listened with considerable concern to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). I begin by saying that I shall be unable to answer some of the points that he made because a number of cases are to be heard by an industrial tribunal. I do not wish to avoid answering, but, for obvious reasons, those cases must be protected. If there is truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said—and I do not mean to suggest that what he has said is other than the truth—he will understand that I do not want to say anything that might cast doubt on those cases or interfere with them. The cases cover a wide range of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I will therefore address myself to the matter with care, but avoid those matters that might be embarrassing to those who have brought those cases. Some of the cases are in the initial stages of preparation, and we do not know how far they will extend. That is another problem.
In January this year 143 disputes began, involving 127,000 workers. About half of them were about pay. I put that on the record because it is obviously true that, in each case, there is considerable difficulty attached to knowing the issue from both sides. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I have all the details, as that would be impossible from the outside. I understand that the facts are as follows. The Transport and General Workers Union, which represents workers at the firm, submitted a pay claim which, if accepted, would have increased pay rates by some 56 per cent. It is quite right for the hon. Gentleman to say that that should be put in the context of the wage rates that are paid by the firm. The firm responded by making an offer of 4 per cent., which the union negotiators rejected, so 110 production workers stopped work.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service then stepped in. That is the first thing that a governmental body, albeit an arms-length one, should do. It held meetings with both sides in an attempt to help them reach a mutually acceptable settlement. Talks foundered when the union rejected the employer's revised offer and it became evident that the union claim was more than the


employer felt he could afford. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to that, but what wages can be afforded when a company is being competitive is a real issue. The result was that the 110 striking workers were dismissed early in February 1984 after they had rejected their employer's request to resume normal working. The employer then advertised in the press for replacement labour.
On 20 February the strikers occupied the factory unlawfully and, began a sit-in. On that same day the company obtained an injunction against that occupation, and the sit-in ended on 23 February. New workers started at the factory on 5 March 1984, when a second sit-in began. It ended the same day with the granting of a second injunction. As the hon. Gentleman said, I understand that there was no violence. I was sorry to hear him comment on the fact that there was very little policing, as it would be sad if we had to have policing whenever industrial problems occurred. I think that he will agree that that would be undesirable.
I am informed—I say that because we ensure that the independence of ACAS results in its informing when asked and I have asked—that ACAS continued to keep in touch with the parties to the dispute and that it met both sides on 15 March, but was unsuccessful in helping them to resolve their differences. Meanwhile, work is continuing at the factory, despite picketing of it. I understand that the employer has withdrawn his vacancy notification from the jobcentre, as the jobs have been filled.
Those are the essential details of the dispute. The work force feel that they are underpaid and the employer believes that he cannot afford to pay more. That is not new. It has frequently happened as declining markets and increasing competition, part of which is for export orders, have brought home awareness of the need to produce quality goods at a better price than our competitors. I put it as clearly as that, not because I am taking sides but because there might be another side to the argument that the hon. Gentleman advanced.

Mr. Robert Litherland: We know what the employer thinks and what the workers think, and we want to know what the Government think. People might have worked at the factory for 30 years and devoted their lives to the company and been restrained from taking wage rises in the past to keep the company going. All they wanted was an increase on £48 a week. In all of the discussions with ACAS, the employer has not improved the offer. What do the Government think about a company paying £48 for a 40-hour week?

Mr. Gummer: I understand that after the discussion with ACAS, the employer improved his offer. We are faced here with a number of people having made applications to an industrial tribunal, and I understand that others are preparing applications. It is important that I should not prejudice those cases, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that. That is the problem of dealing on the Floor of the House with a specific case which is about to come before an industrial tribunal. I am not trying to avoid the hon. Gentleman's question, and I hope that he will appreciate how the problem arises.
I will, therefore, deal with some of the wider points that the hon. Member for Blackley made. He will recall that I have spoken several times in the House on the subject of

wages councils and have made it clear that I have not made up my mind about the question of the abolition or retention of wages councils. I have said clearly that their continuation or abolition depends on a simple proposition, but a difficult one to prove.
If it could be shown, in a society which now establishes a minimum wage by the level of supplementary benefit, that the existence of wages councils reduced Job opportunities without improving the wages of those in work, that must be a serious matter for the Government to take into account. If what the hon. Gentleman says about wages councils is right, it would be wrong to abolish them.
The Government have simply said that they have asked for the evidence and that they have the results of a good deal of research, some of which has surprised me—produced, as it was, by someone who was known to be a supporter of not just the Labour party but something to the Left of that—in that it suggests that some of the worries of my hon. Friends are not without foundation. However, we do not yet have all the evidence, and I have said that when we have it all I shall consider it carefully.

Mr. John Evans: Will it be published?

Mr. Gummer: We shall be happy to make clear the evidence on which the decisions are made, whatever those decisions are, but something worries me and, in speaking of it, I hope that Opposition Members will not take it in a combative spirit but will accept that it is a real problem.
Comparing not just Britain but the whole of Europe with America over the last 10 years, there is one very noticeable difference. Whereas in America, in general, wage costs are slightly lower today than they were 10 years ago, the Americans in those 10 years have created 13 million new jobs. In Britain, wages are considerably higher in real terms, ahead of the rise in the cost of living, than they were 10 years ago.

Mr. Evans: In some areas.

Mr. Gummer: I am talking in general, in terms of national figures. They are considerably higher in general in this country, yet we have not produced anything like that proportion of jobs — indeed, we have produced fewer—under Labour and Conservative Governments, and the same is true throughout Europe
This is an issue which cannot be ignored by anyone who is concerned with unemployment. If we could find the reason why the United States has been so much more successful in the production of jobs, while we in Europe have been so much less successful, that would do more to help the unemployed than any amount of polemic, whether from the Government or Opposition Benches.
If I became convinced that wages councils reduced job opportunities without any real compensating advantage to those in work, I should have to present the House with that evidence and suggest that changes should be made. That cannot be done without the evidence. We should not take the position that the hon. Member for Blackley suggested, that those who investigate the operations of the councils and take evidence from elsewhere are trying to get at the poorest in society. Many of those who signed the early-day motion are known for their concern about unemployment and they see the Government's approach as one way in which we can begin the important business of trying to produce more jobs.
I accept that those with large families who are in work and who for competitive reasons, or through their own inability, earn only low wages must be provided with help, otherwise we force them into the belief that it is better—

Mr. Eastham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: Very little time is left. Without that help, we force them into the belief that it is better not to work. They will then take the whole of their income from the state, and not only family income supplement. That is

damaging to personal integrity and personal pride. I take severe issue with the Low Pay Unit. I wish that it would broaden the base of its political sympathies so that it did what it claims to do instead of what it actually does. I believe that FIS is a humane and proper use of the state's resources, and it would be wrong to attack it in the way that the hon. Gentleman has—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.